Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Granton Harbour Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Durham (Chester-le-Street Division), in the room of John Williamson Taylor, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.—[Mr. Tyson Wilson.]

FAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).

Return [presented 23rd October] to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Captain BOWYER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what was the amount of flour calculated in sacks of 280 lbs. purchased, but which had not left the country of origin on the day the Armistice was signed, in all countries other than the United Kingdom and full details respecting quantities from each country; how much flour calculated in sacks of 280 lbs. has been shipped since the day the Armistice was signed, and the balance of contracts remaining undelivered to date; and what is the quantity calculated in sacks of 280 lbs. of imported flour, that is flour other than has been manufactured in mills in the United Kingdom, now in the United Kingdom on this date?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. It is difficult within the limits of a Parliamentary answer to deal adequately with the lion, and gallant Member's question, in view of the number of figures involved. I am accordingly causing a full statement on the subject to be sent to him, and will also have this statement printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement referred to:

1. There were no stocks of flour in exporting countries other than the United Kingdom on the 11th November, 1918, earmarked for British account. Purchases were made by the Wheat Executive for joint account on behalf of the Allied Governments, and of these purchases there remained unshipped on that date the following quantities of flour expressed in sacks of 280 lbs.:



Sacks of 280 lbs.


Canada
800,000


Australia
700,000


U.S.A.
975,000


China and Japan
7,500

2. Shipments of flour to the United Kingdom from 11th November, 1918, to 22nd October, 1919, out of the above stocks, a contract for, forward delivery entered into between the Wheat Executive and the United States Food Administration just before the Armistice, and subsequent purchases were as follows:



Sacks of 280 lbs.


Canada
2,300,000


U.S.A
3,580,000


Australia
630,000


China and Japan
80,000



6,640,000

3. Purchases on joint account ceased on 31st August, 1919, and on the 22nd October, 1919, the unshipped stocks of flour bought for account of the British Government were.

Sacks.


Canada
500,000


U.S.A.
5,500

4. The quantity of imported flour held in store in the United Kingdom for account of the British Government on 16th October, 1919, the latest date available, was 1,350,000 sacks of 280 lbs.

GERMAN GOODS.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the importation of German goods into the United Kingdom is being permitted without any marks of origin being placed on the goods?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 78.
asked the Prime Minister whether German goods are now being imported to the United Kingdom without any marks or origin; and, if so, whether this is being dune with the sanction of the Government?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): The requirements in regard to the marking of German goods are the same in every way as those applicable to goods imported from any other country. They are set out in a Memorandum issued by the Commissioners of Customs which I am sending to my hon. Friend. Speaking broadly, goods are only required to bear on importation a definite indication of their country or origin when they already bear marks which without that indication would be calculated to deceive. I have recently appointed a Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wells, to inquire inter aliainto the question whether the law at present in force in regard to this matter requires any extension or amendment.

CIGARETTES EXPORTED TO GERMANY.

Captain R. TERRELL: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that only one-tenth of the cigarette orders in this country can be executed; and whether, in view of this fact, he will state the monthly export of cigarettes to the British Army in Germany and also to German firms?

Sir A. GEDDES: As regards the first part of the question I have no information. In the month of June, 1919, no cigarettes were exported to Germany. In July, August and September the registered exports of cigarettes to Germany (excluding those for the British Army) were as follows:


1919
British Cigarettes
Cigarettes of Foreign Manufacture.



lbs.
lbs.


July
5,500
Nil.


August
54,500
8,500


September
254,500
26,000

The Customs records of deliveries to the Army and Navy do not distinguish the countries to which they are sent.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

REDUCED OUTPUT (INCOME TAX).

Captain COOTE: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that one of the reasons for the reduced output of coal is that many miners are unwilling to produce a quantity sufficient to render their wages liable in Income Tax; and, if so, what remedy lie proposes?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have no official information bearing out the suggestion in question.

MINERS' DAILY WAGES.

Major NEWMAN: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the standard daily wage of a collier working at the face in an average coal mine; and how many hours of his time per week will be occupied in securing at such daily wage a yearly aggregate wage of £130?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is estimated that the standard daily wage of a collier working at the face in an average coal mine is approximately 15s. 6d., and on this basis of calculation he would be occupied for twenty-five hours per week in securing a yearly aggregate wage of £130.

Mr. T. WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many tons they have to mine to get that?

Sir A. GEDDES: I would require to have notice of that question.

NATIONALISATION.

Mr. BETTERTON: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether the policy of the Government as outlined in his recent speeches, with respect to the nationalisation of mineral rights, applies to all minerals or is limited to coal?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The statement of policy of the Government upon this subject referred only to coal.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance now assumed by the question of the nationalisation of the mines, the Government will adopt the democratic and constitutional method of submitting the issue to the free and unfettered verdict of the people by a referendum of the whole electorate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have stated before, the Government are not prepared to adopt this suggestion.

INSURANCE COMPANIES (REGISTRATION).

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are over sixty reinsurance companies registered abroad or with foreign headquarters now carrying on business in this country; and how many have made the deposit of £20,000 required by law from English companies?

Sir A. GEDDES: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with a list of the sixty reinsurance companies referred to in his question, I will make inquiries as to the nature of the business carried on by such companies, with a view to considering whether they are liable to make a deposit of £20,000 under the Assurance Companies Act, 1909. Information has been obtained as to the twelve companies of foreign origin carrying on reinsurance business to which my bon: Friend drew my attention in his question of the 4th June, and I am now obtaining legal opinion as to which of those companies are liable to make the deposit.

COAL COMMISSION REPORT.

Mr. HARTSHORN: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether full Reports of the Proceedings of the Coal Commission will be published; and, if so, whether lie can say when the public may be able to obtain copies?

Sir A. GEDDES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the Stationery Office hope to be in a position to place the Reports on sale at the end of this month.

PROFITEERING ACT.

Mr. HIGHAM: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to inform the House the number of cities, towns, villages, and boroughs that have so far failed to set up profiteering tribunals; if he can inform the House of the reasons why these tribunals have not been
set up; and what action he proposes to take in those places where there is no tribunal to which the public can appeal when they have evidence of profiteering?

Sir A. GEDDES: One hundred and eighty-seven local authorities out of 2,042 to whom invitations were sent have failed to appoint local committees under the Profiteering Act. Among those who have given a reason for their refusal some allege that either there is no profiteering in their district or that they dislike the provisions of the Act requiring that the expenses be met out of the local rates and not out of funds voted by Parliament. If the public in any district consider that a local committee should be established it is for them to bring pressure to bear on the local authority to appoint a committee.

Mr. HIGHAM: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that the present working of the Profiteering Act is not proving an effective deterrent to profiteering; and what action lie proposes to take in the matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am unable to admit the premises of my hon. Friend's question. In view of the short time which has elapsed since the passing of the Act it is too early to say whether the Act has been or will be an effective deterrent to profiteering.

Mr. LORDEN: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the action of certain gas companies in raising the rents for meters, stoves, and apparatus let on hire by 50 per cent., even when such meter, stove, or apparatus was installed prior to 1914; and, as local committees are in doubt how to act in these cases, will fie take the necessary action to stop this profiteering?

Sir A. GEDDES: My attention has been called to the matters referred to in my hon. Friend's question. As the hire of a gas-meter or a gas-stove is not a sale or offer for sale of an article, I am advised that the Profiteering Act cannot be applied to the rentals charged for the hire of such articles.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any chance of having the Act amended—possibly by leave of this House—to include such cases?

Sir A. GEDDES: I think in fairnees I may inform the House that we have been considering very carefully whether the Profiteering Act requires any amendment to extend the powers granted under it. That is at present under consideration.

COAL PROFITS.

Mr. HOLMES: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many tons of coal were sold for export and bunkers during the months of August and September; and what was the average profit per ton?

Sir A. GEDDES: The tonnage of coal exported in August, 1919, was 2,170,813 tons valued at £5,337,508 f. o. b. and in September, 2,677,189 tons valued at £7,732,919 f. o. b. As regards coal for bunkers (Foreign and Coastwise), 1,256,227 tons were sold during August, 1919, and 1,232,550 tons during September, but the values are not stated. I regret that there is no available information as to the profits on export or bunker coal during the months of August and September.

Mr. HOLMES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman say that he is considering whether the price of coal can be altered and if that is so, how can he do so without knowing the profit on exported coal and bunker coal, which is a material part of the profits?

Sir A. GEDDES: The need for continuing the, consideration, and the impossibility of arriving at an immediate decision is that we have to get this information. I have stated in my reply that it is not immediately available and that we are now getting it.

Mr. HOLMES: in view of the importance of this subject I beg to give notice that I will call attention to it on the Adjournment of the House to-night.

Sir F. LOWE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of anthracite coal is being exported and is he aware that the Government advised people to get anthracite stoves, and is it not desirable that some restraint should be put en the export of anthracite coal and to see that the people who have anthracite stoves receive a supply of anthracite coal?

Sir A. GEDDES: I shall certainly look into the point about anthracite coal to see whether the facts are as suggested.

INDIAN QUESTIONS.

Questions Nos. 20, 21, and 22 stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel YATE, relating to Indian matters.

Colonel YATE: I have been asked to postpone these questions, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether, in postponing them till Wednesday, as I have been asked to do, I can then ask questions already down on the Paper in my name for that day, in addition to these?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think one or other of the two sets of questions will have to yield. I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Gentleman more than four.

RUSSIA.

RELATIONS OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to lay upon the Table Papers showing the relations of the British Government, the Allied and Associated Powers, or the Paris Peace Council with the various Russian. Governments and their representatives in Paris and elsewhere; and whether the support given to Generals Koltchak, Denikin, and others is to be indefinitely continued in the future, or whether a limit in time or dependent on certain results being achieved has been signified?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Gov-eminent are not at present furnishing either supplies or funds to Admiral Koltchak, nor do they contemplate furnishing supplies indefinitely to General Denikin.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. SWAN: 82.
asked the Prime Minister whether in January of this year he opposed the proposal to blockade Russia; and whether an early opportunity will be given to the House to record its views on the action taken recently by the Allies with a view to securing help from Germany and neutral Powers in the continuance of the blockade?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. If there is a general desire for a
discussion of the situation in Russia for which an opportunity does not arise in the ordinary course, I shall be happy to arrange a day for it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 83.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of public statements made in official evidence in -Washington, he is now in a position to modify or add to the declaration of Russian policy made by him in this House on 16th April?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister does not modify nor does he at present propose to add to the declaration of Russian policy made by him on the 16th April.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that the present Russian policy of His Majesty's Government is to co-operate with the Germans in blockading Soviet Russia, and to use the troops of Colonel Bermondt against the Bolshevists?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. and gallant Friend would only be justified in understanding that if it was a declaration of policy made on the date named by the Prime Minister.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: As the circumstances have entirely changed since April last, would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to make a statement bringing the position of bur relations with the Russian Government up to date?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have already said that if there is any desire to discuss the Russian situation the Government will be perfectly ready to have a debate at any time.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS).

Major Sir B. FALLE: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if certain clerks of the Board who have attained the age of sixty have been asked to retire, or have voluntarily retired and have accepted their pensions, while juniors have been advanced to their posts on full salary; if such has been done in the interest of economy or of efficiency, or both; if he can give any reason why the usual Civil Service rule for age has not been followed, or why the new plan has not been given universal application at the Board; and if the retirement volun-
tarily or otherwise of clerks under the usual age to pension is uneconomical and suggests the possibilities of favouritism?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): Any established Civil servant who has reached the age of sixty is entitled to retire on a pension, and this right has been exercised by certain officers of the Board in response to the President's desire to stimulate the flow of promotion in the Office. In these circumstances no questions arise of the character suggested in my hon. Friend's question, and there has been no departure from the usual practice. Five established officers who have passed the age of sixty will remain in the service of the Board, but they occupy technical posts in which they could not be replaced at present- without serious detriment to the work on which they are engaged, and in their cases, therefore, the President is satisfied that it would not be in the public interest that they should exercise their right to retire at present.

Sir B. FALLE: May I ask if these gentlemen were retired at sixty in the interests of economy?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They were retired at sixty at their own request.

Sir B. FALLE: Is it a fact that those particular gentlemen were retired at their own request, or is it that they have been practically pushed out?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, I cannot agree with that at all. They exercised their right.

Major W. MURRAY: 33.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what was the total number of persons employed at Gretna Factory immediately prior to the declaration of the Armistice; what is the total number employed there now; and whether he will state the approximate number of ex-Service men and of women now employed at Gretna factory?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The total number of persons employed at His Majesty's factory, Gretna, immediately before the signature of the Armistice was 11,477. The number employed there on 15th October was 1,111 men and 208 women. Three hundred and forty-four of the men were ex-Service men.

Major MURRAY: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the Report of the Gretna Factory Committee can now be made public?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The whole question of the retention of Gretna and certain other national factories to form a nucleus of munitions manufacturing capacity is being considered afresh in the light of recent developments. Meanwhile no decision can be come to as to the publication of the Departmental Report referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say why this Report should not be published for the guidance of the House?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have not said the Report would not be published, but it was a Departmental Report for the information of the Ministry, and until a decision is taken upon it I think it is undesirable to publish it.

Mr. LAMBERT: Would it not be wiser to publish the Report and allow the House to give guidance to the Ministry?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I think it might very well prejudice the decision which will have to be taken. It covers a number of factories.

AGRICULTURE.

CREDIT BANKS.

Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMAS: 29.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the national importance of the agricultural industry, he will consider tile advisability of establishing an agricultural credit bank on the lines successfully proved in Australia and other countries and so directly benefit not only the agriculturist but also the State?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries arc aware of the great importance of credit banks to the agricultural industry, and they have the question to which the hon. and gallant Member refers under careful consideration.

ROYAL COMMISSION.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state the reason
for not including a representative of the National Cattle Food Trade Association on the Royal Commission on Agriculture?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Bard of Agriculture why no representative of the makers of cattle food was appointed a member of the Royal Commission on Agriculture; and whether he will now consider the appointment of an additional member to represent this trade interest?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It was not considered desirable to include representatives of any trade associations as such in the list of persons recommended to His Majesty for appointment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will facilities be given to representatives of this important trade to attend the sittings of the Commission and listen to the evidence?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am not certain how far the Commission is open to the public, but surely their best course, if they wish to influence the findings of the Commission, is to give evidence before them.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

OATS

Mr. STURROCK: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether action is contemplated in the direction of having oats controlled at a moderate price?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. The price of oats has fallen since the harvest and a further fall is expected as the crop moves more freely and the larger supply of imported oats and maize coming forward becomes more generally felt. In the circumstances, I am in agreement with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture that action in the matter is not required at the present moment. The situation, however, is being carefully watched.

OATMEAL.

Mr. C. BARRIE: 44.
asked the Food Controller if he is aware that oatmeal, the staple food of the people of Scotland, is about two and a-half times the price of flour in England; and if he intends to take any steps to remove this anomaly?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware that the price of oatmeal is substantially higher than the subsidised price of flour. In view, however, of the present financial position of the country I do not feel justified in asking the Cabinet to sanction a subsidy for oatmeal.

Mr. BARRIE: Is it not the case that farmers are being subsidised to such an extent that the food of the people of Scotland is raised very much higher than the food of the people of England?

Mr. ROBERTS: I do not know that.

MILK.

Colonel BURN: 87.
asked the Food Controller, in view of the price of milk, what measures, if any, are being taken to ensure that the children and the sick can have an adequate supply at a price within their reach?

Dr. ADDISON: I have been asked to answer this question. Local authorities are empowered, subject to any necessary restrictions imposed by the Food Controller in times of shortage, to supply milk for expectant nod nursing mothers and children under five at cost price or less, according to the circumstances of the case; and I have recently impressed upon them the importance of a full exercise of their powers in this respect. I will send the hon. and gallant Member a copy of my Circular. Arrangements can be made through the food control committees for priority of supply in the case of sick persons and young children if necessary. I am informed, however that the supply of milk is considered fully adequate.

Major WOOD: How many local authorities have availed themselves of these powers?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice of that.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Can the Minister of Food see his way to issue some kind of White Paper or Circular showing the reasons why prices are so extraordinarily high at the present time?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have sought to make clear the reason why prices are high in my replies, and any further information any hon. Member may desire I shall be glad to give.

BUTTER.

Major Sir 'BERTRAM FALLE: 88.
asked the Food Controller if complaints have
been made as to the quality of the butter now being supplied through the Controller to Portsmouth retailers by the chief inspector, Portsmouth; whether the Ministry of Food has been approached without much success and that the local food control committee is helpless; and if ho will take steps to have this matter put right?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am informed that complaints of the nature referred to have been received. Owing to the present world shortage of butter the supplies available for distribution in this country are extremely limited, and it has in very occasional instances been fumed necessary, in order to maintain the ration, to distribute butter of slightly lower grade. I can, however, assure the hon. and gallant Member that every endeavour is being made to maintain the quality of the butter supply at as high a level as possible.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Food Controller at Portsmouth has said that the baiter supplied to that town is so bad that there is three week's supply in the town, and the retailers are obliged to keep their stocks because they cannot sell them?

Mr. ROBERTS: It is quite true that they have to take such supplies as we allot to them, but I was not aware that any quantity was so objectionable. I knew that they were fastidious, but I thought that we had catered for their taste.

EGGS.

Mr. STEWART: 86
asked the Food Controller whether the export of eggs from Egypt last year was controlled by the Ministry of Food and purchases were confined to one firm to whom merchants having eggs to dispose of were obliged to sell their stocks although the said firm was their trade rival; whether he is aware that eggs were dearer under control last year than they have ever been previously, and the export to this country was considerably less than it formerly was; whether control on the export of eggs has been removed from many countries; and whether he can see his way to accord a similar freedom to the Egyptian egg trade and so save the expense of maintaining a controller and staff in that country?

Mr. ROBERTS: By arrangement with the Egyptian Government the supplies of eggs in Egypt available for export in the year 19I8–19 were taken over by my Department. The purchase was made
through a committee of traders in Egypt and was not confined to one firm, as the hon. Member states. All available shipping space was utilised to the utmost extent and I am satisfied that under these arrangements a larger quantity of sound eggs was made available to the consumers in this country at a cheaper rate than would otherwise have been the case. Owing to its success the arrangement is being again carried out during the present winter by agreement with the Egyptian Government. As regards staff, the only expense incurred by the arrangement is in respect of one officer who acts as the agent of the Ministry in Egypt.

Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these merchants would very much like to be rid of Government control?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am quite aware of that.

SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (SALE).

Captain BOWYER: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether it is necessary that Army clothing sold under the Disposal Board should always be sold in large quantities; whether he has considered the possibility of selling such clothing in small lots which could be purchased by ex-Service men's organisations, in turn to be delivered to branches of the organisations which are prepared to take them; and whether, in view of the great benefit to ex-Service men to be derived from this system, he will take steps to institute it at the forthcoming sales?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It has been, and will continue to be, the practice of the Disposal Board to offer small lots of clothing and similar stores for sale, whether by auction or by tender. In a recent advertisement, dealing with the disposal of 5,750,000 yards of cloth of various descriptions, it was announced that tenders for five pieces and upwards would be considered. The present arrangements seem to offer every opportunity to ex-Service men's organisations, such as those referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's question, to obtain what they require.

Major O'NEILL: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
Munitions whether he can arrange for sales of Government stores to be held in the smaller country towns, so as to enable the rural population to obtain such stores direct instead of through intermediate purchasers, to whom they often have to pay a large profit?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Sales of surplus Government stores are being held in all parts of the country at or as near as possible to the places where the material is stored. All sales are extensively advertised and are so arranged as to ensure, so far as possible, that all classes of prospective purchasers may have an opportunity of buying.

Major O'NEILL: Is it not a fact that there are practically no towns with populations of from 5,000 to 10,000 where these sales are being held?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I should not think so, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will see a copy of the circular which gives full particulars of all the sales he will see how very widespread they are. If he will call my attention to any place where a sale might be held with advantage, I shall be glad to consider it.

40. Major GREAME: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, whether he will consider the advisability of selling stocks of clothing and clothing material released by the War Office and other Departments by public auction rather than by tender?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Very large quantities of clothing are in fact disposed of by auction throughout the country from time to time. It would not be in the public interest to exclude sales by tender. Apart from other considerations, the experience of the Disposal Board shows that sales by tender attract a larger public and afford wider opportunities for purchase.

SLOUGH MOTOR DEPOT.

Captain R. TERRELL: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the Government policy with regard to the Slough depot has undergone any modification; and, if so, in what direction; and will he also state the total annual cost for running this depot?

Mr. KELLAWAY: There has been no modification of the Government's policy
with regard to the Motor Transport Depot at Slough. As the depot has not been running for a year, it is not possible to give an estimate of the total annual cost.

Mr. NEWBOULD: Does not that create a record in continuity of policy in regard to Slough?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The policy of the Government is based on the recommendation of the Select Committee, which expressed the opinion that at the end of two or three years, when it becomes necessary -to take a decision as to the future of the depot, the Government as a whole should carefully re-examine the question. That the Government propose to do.

Captain TERRELL: Will he give us the monthly cost of running this depot?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will see if that can be done, but I am not sure that very useful conclusions could be formed from the monthly costs.

RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

WAGONS (MANUFACTURE).

Major GREAME: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the Government policy, as announced on the 5th March with regard to the use of national factories, has been altered; and whether it is now proposed to use national factories for the manufacture of railway wagons in competition with private traders?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: 124.
asked the Minister of Transport whether it is the intention of the Government to use any and, if so, which of the national factories for the manufacture of railway rolling stock?

Captain BOWYER: 125.
asked the 'Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many of the makers of railway wagons in this country are short of orders; and whether the Ministry of Transport intends to utilise the national factories to compete with such wagon makers in the manufacture of railway wagons?

Mr. MADDOCKS: 127.
asked the Minister of Transport whether an order for railway wagons has been placed with Woolwich Arsenal; if so, for which railway company has the order been placed; and will he state whether the order has been approved by such railway company and for the Railway Executive Committee?

Mr. KELLAWAY: There has been no change in the Government policy. It is not proposed to use national factories for the manufacture of railway wagons in competition with private traders. Orders for railway wagons are not accepted by the Ministry for any railway company unless such company has assured the Ministry that they are unable to get the deliveries required from railway wagon builders. Orders for 2,000 railway wagons for the North-Eastern Railway and 500 for the Great Western Railway have been placed with Woolwich Arsenal. One hundred locomotive engines are being manufactured at the Arsenal for the Government. A certain amount of repair work on railway rolling stock is being undertaken at Woolwich Arsenal, and at one or two other national factories.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us who placed these orders at Woolwich Arsenal?

Mr. KELLAWAY: If the hon. Baronet refers to the railway wagons, one order was placed on behalf of the North-Eastern Railway and the other on behalf of the Great Western Railway.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I wish to know which Department placed the order?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It was placed by the Ministry of Munitions.

ORDNANCE FACTORIES (DRAUGHTSMEN).

Mr. CROOKS: 39.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that a deputation representative of ordnance factories draughtsmen was received on the 25th March last relative to the claim of these draughtsmen to be placed on the pensionable establishment, and that up to the present no reply has been given to the representations then made; and whether he is now in a position to state his decision?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): It is intended that consideration of the claim referred to in my right hon. Friend's question shall fall within the scope of a Departmental Committee, which will consider questions relating to the pensionable establishment of various
factories under the Ministry of Munitions. As the Association representing these draughtsmen has already been informed, similar claims have been received from other classes of clerical and supervisory grades.

ROYAL PARKS (EMPLOYES HOURS).

Mr. J. JONES: 41.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that in February last representations were made to his Department in favour of a reduction in the working hours of employes in the. Royal Parks from fifty-one to forty-seven per week; whether these representations have yet been considered; and whether he is now in a position to state the result?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): This question with others relating to service in the Royal Parks has been receiving the careful consideration of my Department, and I hope soon to be in a position to recommend to the Treasury a scheme which will ensure to all men concerned an average week of forty-eight hours.

SCOTTISH SMALL HOLDINGS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. WILKIE: 43.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the. Scottish Board of Agriculture have given notice of eviction to Mr. McNaught, a discharged soldier, at present in possession of a small holding at Braeside Gagie, by Dundee; that Mr. McNaught is a married man with a family of seven; that he is to be evicted to make room for another man without family, to whom it is proposed to let fifty acres, which would provide a living for at least three families; and whether, before the eviction takes place, he will have inquiries made into the matter and arrange for this discharged soldier to retain the holding?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): Mr. McNaught, who was an engine fitter before joining the Army, was allowed temporary occupation of the cottage on the holding referred to, to prevent him from suffering hardship on his removal from a cottage on another estate. There was a clear agreement that his tenancy was not to exceed six months,
and no promise of a holding was given to him. The Board must make the most suitable sub-division of lands which they have acquired for small holdings, and their scheme provides for a holding of about fifty acres attached to the cottage. Mr. McNaught would not have the qualifications for a holding of the kind, and the fact that he was given temporary occupation of the cottage gives him no prior claim over other ex-Service men of better qualifications to one of whom it is proposed to allot the holding.

FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS.

Major W. MURRAY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether Forestry Commissioners for the United Kingdom have been appointed; and whether their names can now be made public?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The names of the Commissioners will be announced shortly —I hope this week.

PEACE TREATY.

AUSTRIAN LIABILITIES.

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Peace Treaty with Austria provides that liabilities in Austrian currency of Austrian nationals to British subjects are to be discharged in sterling at the pre-war rate of exchange; will the Austrian Government guarantee the payment of such debts, and, if not, how will they be recovered; what assistance will the Government render in the recovery of such debts, in view of the fact that British creditors have been prohibited from receiving payment of their debts during the War; and what steps will be taken to make Austrian assets in this country available for payment of Austrian liabilities here?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. The guarantee of the Austrian Government for payment of the private debts of her citizens will apply only in the event of a clearing office scheme being adopted, and it is not proposed to adopt that scheme in the case of Austria. It will be necessary for British creditors to take the ordinary steps to obtain payment of their debts, but provision is made in the Treaty for
Austrian assets in this country being charged with the payment of Austrian liabilities here.

GERMAN INDEMNITIES.

Mr. HOUSTON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether it has been brought to his notice that the German Government proposes to pay 1,500,000,000 marks to German shipowners as compensation for their war losses; and can he state the amount Germany will be made to pay to this country as compensation for the loss of British tonnage through German action during the War?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have no definite information about the first part of the question. I would refer my hon. Friend to Articles 235 and 236 of the Treaty with Germany and to Annexe III. to the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty. These provisions may be summarised as follows: Within two months of the coming into force of the Treaty, Germany is to deliver to the Reparation Commission all the German merchant ships which are of 1,600 tons gross or upwards, and a proportion of those under 1,600 tons. Within five years from the coming into force of the Treaty Germany is to build merchant ships in German yards to an amount to be laid down by the Reparation Commission. Apart from these special provisions, the loss of British tonnage through the action of Germany and her Allies during the War will form part of the damage which Germany undertakes to make good under Article 232 of the Treaty.

Mr. HOUSTON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the total amount of indemnities, compensation, and reparation which Germany has to pay to France and Belgium, respectively; whether any instalments in money or material have been paid to either or both of these countries; and, if so, the amounts of the same?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the question, under Article 233 of the Treaty with Germany, the amount which is to be paid by Germany by way of reparation is to be determined by the Reparation Commission to be set up under the Treaty. This Commission does not begin to function until the Treaty has been ratified by at least three of the principal Allied and Associated Powers, but I understand that certain deliveries
in kind haired-ten provisionally arranged by agreement to with the German Government, and are the ready taking place. Particulars of three deliveries will not be available until the Reparation Commission itself has met and determined what statements are to be published from time to time.
Perhaps my hon. Friend and the House will allow me to remind them that the Reparation Commission is, of course, not a British Government Department. It is an international body, and I cannot answer for it or on its behalf, as I can for a Department under my own control.

Sir F. LOWE: Is there any provision as to indemnity, apart from the question of reparation? I did not gather that my right hon. Friend said anything about indemnity.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend will look at the Treaty, he will find all the information available.

Sir F. LOWE: But the question particularly asks what indemnity Germany is to be made to pay, and when?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Whatever we may have to come is under the terms of the Treaty.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us who is going to get the money when it is paid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The British Government will get it for the British nation.

Mr. HOUSTON: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the total amount of money it has been decided shall be demanded from Germany as indemnity, compensation, or reparation to Great Britain; and when the first instalment is due and the amount of the same?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: By Article 233 of the Treaty with Germany, it is provided that the Reparation Commission shall determine the amount to be paid by Germany and the times and manner of payment. Article 235 of the Treaty provides that, pending the full determination of the claims of the Allied and Associated Powers, Germany shall pay in such instalments and in such manner as the Reparation Commission may fix during 1919, 1920, and the first four months of 1921, the equivalent of 20,000,000,000 gold marks, which sum is charged in the first instance with the cost of the Armies of Occupation
and of such supplies [...] and raw materials as may be [...] the Governments of the [...] Allied and Associated Powers to be essential to enable Germany to [...] obligations for reparation.

Mr. HOUSTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister, and practically every Coalition candidate, at the General Election assured the electors that Germany would be made to pay the full costs of the War to the uttermost farthing?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of that. My hon. Friend has a greater knowledge of his own speeches than of mine. It does not correctly represent the speeches of the Prime Minister or his colleagues.

Mr. HOUSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that the Prime Minister made that specific declaration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; he did not.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under these indemnity clauses Germany is already terribly in arrear with her contribution for the cost of the Army of Occupation; and what steps dues he propose to take to enforce at least this mild provision?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would remind my hon. Friend what I have just brought to the attention of the House, that the Reparation Commission is not a British Government Department, and I cannot issue instructions to it.

BOARDS OF GUARDIANS.

Sir J. D. REES: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of present financial conditions, it is still proposed to set up new authorities in the place of existing boards of guardians?

Captain HACKING: 98.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the financial position of the country, he will take no further action at present in connection with the proposal to set up new authorities in the place of the boards of guardians, which proposal must involve an addition to existing expenditure, but will ask the present boards of guardians to deal with all matters which would come within the purview of the new authority?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): In view of the clearly defined policy of the Government, I am unable to accept the suggestion conveyed in these questions, but I can assure my hon. Friends that in any proposals that we may submit to Parliament on these subjects the importance of economy will be fully recognised.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION.

STRIKE NEAR BERRAK.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a Proclamation was recently issued by the British Command in Germany declaring strikes illegal and that when a strike took place in a tube factory near Berrak the men were arrested, court-martialled, and imprisoned; and whether these methods have the approval of His Majesty's Government?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am having inquiry made, and will communicate with tile lion and gallant Member as soon as a Report is received.

NATIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill during this Session extending the National Unemployment Insurance Acts?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I have been asked to reply to this question. Plans for an extended scheme of compulsory unemployment insurance on a contributory basis have been under active consideration in the Ministry of Labour during the summer. I had hoped to be in a position to introduce a Bill for the purpose early in the present Session, but I regret that it is not possible to do so.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: Have any of the representatives of the trade union organisations been consulted in the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: No; none of the unions have been consulted in this matter up till now. The matter was referred to the Provisional Committee of the National
Industrial Conference, but they did not see any ground upon which to arrive at a considered conclusion upon the subject; and there the matter remains.

Mr. J. JONES: Is not this as important as the Aliens Bill? Have not private Members of the House been called into consultation with the Government on that?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that is a question I cannot answer.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, if lie intends to extend the unemployment dole after next month, give the House of Commons the opportunity of considering it?

Sir R. HORNE: That question was asked me a few days ago, and I said, before any extension of the unemployment donation took place, the House would undoubtedly be consulted.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: In view of the fact that this measure will affect about 6,000,000 organised workers in all parts of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of consulting the representatives of the various organisations about the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: I am quite well aware of the large number of people involved in the Bill.

TELEPHONE SYSTEM (EXTENSION).

Mr. G, DOYLE: 64 and 93.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the inefficiency, public discontent, and financial loss to the nation under State ownership and management of the telephone system, and before any further burden is placed upon the taxpayers by reason of proposed additional expenditure, the Government will consider the alternative of inviting tenders for private ownership and control: and (2) whether there is any immediate prospect of greater efficiency in the telephone service whether it is proposed to have any further capital outlay in this branch of the service; and, if so, what is the proposed amount and from what source it will he derived?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): The defects in the telephone service are principally due to the suspension of construction work and to the diversion of trained operators to other occupations during the War. A con-
siderable number of new exchanges and of underground cables are necessary to meet the requirements of the public in areas where the existing spare plant is exhausted. I hope to be able to spend about £3,000,000 on the development of the see vice during the current year if the various contractors arc able to deliver the plant. The money required will be provided from the sum authorised by the Telegraph Money Act, 1913. The financial loss on the service is due to the increased cost of labour and material, which is felt by all undertakings, and can only be met by an increase in the rates charged to the public. If the telephone service were in private ownership similar difficulties would be experienced, and I see no reason for reversing the policy which has been followed by previous Governments and re-transferring the undertaking to a private company.

EXCESS PROFITS TAX.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 65.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to reconsider the question of the application of the Excess Profits Tax to capital appreciations and accumulations since August, 1914?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Excess Profits Tax is a tax on the excess profits of businesses. Its machinery is not, and could not be made, applicable to the taxation of capital appreciations and accumulations.

WHITLEY COUNCILS (DEPARTMENTS).

Mr. A. HENDERSON: 69.
asked the Prime Minister whether instructions have been given to Departments to form Whitley Councils; if so, the date such instructions were issued; and what steps have been taken in the direction of establishing Departmental Councils?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the Treasury Circular of 25th August last with enclosures from which he will see that instructions on this subject were issued to Departments on that date. Departments are now engaged in establishing Joint Councils on the lines suggested in these documents.

Mr. HENDERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps have
been taken to form a Council in connection with the Ministry of Pensions; if not, what is the reason of the delay?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; I cannot answer for individual Departments without inquiry. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would put a question to the Ministry itself?

CABINET (RECONSTRUCTION).

MINISTERS CHOSEN.

Lieut.-Col. AUBREY HERBERT: 55.
asked the Prime Minister who are the right hon. Gentlemen composing the Cabinet?

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to re-establish the system of Cabinet government with collective responsibility, or if he intends to continue the present system of War Cabinet assisted by Cabinet Committees; and whether, in the event of his deciding on the former alternative, he can say how and when the Cabinet will be constituted or, in the latter alternative, he can state what is the present system and machinery of government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister has invited the following Ministers to be members of the Cabinet:

Lord Privy Seal.
Lord President of the Council.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My Right Hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow.
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or the Chief Secretary.
Lord Chancellor.
Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Secretary of State for War and Air.
Secretary of State for India.
First Lord of the Admiralty.
Secretary for Scotland.
President of the Board of Trade.
Minister of Health.
President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
President of the Board of Education.
Minister of Labour.
Minister of Transport.

HON. MEMBERS: How many?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Twenty.

Mr. C. WHITE: Will the eight Gentlemen who were invited to Downing Street last Friday be among them?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We have Committees of Ministers. Does the hon. Gentleman refer to these?

Mr. WHITE: No, I did not refer to those.

LIGHTNING STRIKES.

Mr. G. DOYLE: 63.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to deal with the menace to the safety of the realm and the prosperity of the Country of lightning strikes?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter has not been overlooked, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the organisation of Civic Guards to meet this case to be perfected openly or in secret?

Mr. BONAR LAW: What organisation I do riot understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I refer to the organisation of the Civic or Citizens' Guard, set up by the Government a few days before the end of the railway strike.

Mr. BONAR LAW: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the organisation set up by the Government to enable the life of the nation to go on, it is intended to continue it. I do not think it would be desirable, and I am not prepared—I have not the information—to go into details. I can only repeat that whatever organisation we consider necessary for that purpose will be retained.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consult the House before any steps are taken in this matter, time same as in the other?

HON. MEMBERS: No, no‡

An HON. MEMBER: Sit down ‡

Mr. JONES: Why should I sit down? I will not for you. When Mr. Speaker tells me to sit down, I will.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE (GENERAL STAFF).

Sir J. DAVIDSON: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to
form a combined Imperial Defence General Staff, comprising experts from the Navy, Army, and Air Force, and including Dominion representatives, to consider problems of the defence of the Empire as a whole, including questions of establishments and garrisons, with a view to obtaining a considered economical policy of defence; and, if so, whether the policy and estimates under consideration at the present time for the Navy, Army, and Air Force will 'be submitted to this expert body as soon as it can be formed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: During the War and up to the present time the co-ordination of naval, military and air effort has been concentrated in the War Cabinet to which experts from the General Staffs of the three Departments were regularly invited. The precise method by which similar coordination will be secured on the reversion to the normal Cabinet system has not yet been decided.

FOOD MINISTRY.

Mr. JOHN DAVISON: 68.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received representations from the Consumers' Council in favour of the establishment of the Ministry of Food upon a permanent basis; whether this matter has been considered; and whether he proposes to give permanence to the Ministry of Food as a Department of the national administration with widely increased powers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have come to the conclusion that the Ministry of Food must be continued for some time and can at present give no date for its termination, nor can they state to what extent or in what way some of its functions may be continued.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.

Major NEWMAN: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministry of Munitions is still the Ministry of Munitions or has it become the Ministry of Supply; and whether it is intended that it shall be called the Ministry for the Disposal of Surplus Stores until the period of its final demobilisation?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There has been no change in the name of the Ministry referred to.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTION.

Major NEWMAN: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether any representation has been, or will be, given to British labour that does not form part of what is known as organised labour at the forthcoming International Labour Convention in connection with the Peace Treaty at Washington; how were the members to represent the United Kingdom at the Convention chosen or selected; and are the expenses of the mission borne by public funds?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The representatives of Labour from the United Kingdom at the International Labour Conference in Washington were nominated by the Government in consultation with the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, in accordance with the principles laid down in Article 380 of the Peace Treaty. The travelling and subsistence allowances of the delegates are borne by public funds in accordance with the provisions of the International Labour Convention.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What Vote will these expenses come under?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not considered that. Probably the Labour Vote.

EX-KAISER AND EX-CROWN PRINCE (GUARD).

Sir PARK GOFF: 73.
asked the Prime Minister what precautions are at present being taken to guard the ex-Kaiser and the ex-Crown Prince?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: His Majesty's Government are unaware of the precise nature of the precautions which the Netherlands Government are taking for this purpose. They have, however, no reason to doubt that all necessary measures are adopted.

Sir P. GOFF: Has the hon. Gentleman any knowledge of the statement that there constant telephonic and telegraphic communication between the ex-Kaiser and his country?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir; I have no knowledge of that.

ENEMY COMMANDERS AND OFFICERS (TRIAL)

Sir P. GOFF: 74.
asked the Prime Minister when those enemy commanders, officers, and officials who are known to have committed crimes are to be brought to trial?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as possible after the ratification of the Treaty of Peace.

RAILWAY STRIKE.

COST TO COUNTRY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 75.
asked what was the cost of the Government's publicity campaign during the recent railway strike and to what Votes would this money be charged?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 80.
asked the Prime Minister whether lie can state the approximate cost, directly and indirectly, to the State of the recent railway strike?

Mr. THOMAS: 126.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the House an approximate estimate of the abnormal costs incurred by the railway administration during the railway strike, distinguishing between operating expenses and expenses for publicity- and propaganda; and if he will state at what rate, in what form, and for what amount Treasury sanction was obtained for expenditure incurred under the latter head, which can presumably not have been in mind when the Estimates for the Department were sanctioned in March and April last?

Mr. THOMAS: 178.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of expenditure incurred from public funds in connection with the recent railway strike, distinguishing between publicity and propaganda, including advertisements of the Government case, expenditure in maintaining the service of transport and communication, together with such other headings as may have been used in classification, stating on what dates and for what sums Treasury sanction was given for the expenditure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total cost to the Exchequer of the railway strike is believed to be, roughly, about £10,000,000, including delay in demobilization estimated at £5,000,000.
The figures are, however, not yet complete. The cost to the State in the wider sense is incalculable. The cost of publicity and propaganda was £32,657. The-question whether all direct Exchequer charges by reason of the railway strike shall be met from a separate Vote to be presented to Parliament is under consideration.

NOTICE OF MOTION.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 79.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will grant a day for the discussion of the circumstances which led to the recent railway strike?

Mr. ADAMSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I desire to say that the railway servants would welcome a Debate at any time after the negotiations which are at present in progress.

Mr. BONAR LAW: If there is a general desire for such a discussion I shall be happy to arrange it.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Arising out of that answer, I beg to give notice that at an early date I will call attention to the recent railway strike, and move:
That this House is of opinion that such a strike was unjustified and was inimical to the best interests of labour, and calls upon the Government to at once introduce legislation rendering illegal any stoppage of the public services at the instance of trade union executives without due notice, and a ballot, of the members concerned.

Mr. J. JONES: Stop "John Bull" in the same way.

POLAND (BRITISH NAVAL MISSION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 76.
asked the Prime Minister whether a British naval mission is or has been in Poland; what is or was the abject of this mission; whether a Polish Navy is in contemplation; and whether it is the policy of the Supreme Council to encourage the formation of new navies in the Baltic or elsewhere?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: At the urgent request of the Polish Government a British Naval Mission, with Commander Wharton in command, arrived at Warsaw on 11th September with the object of advising the Polish Government on various technical questions such as the development of their seaboard, rivers, minesweeping, ports and docks, and the
organisation of their river and seaborne traffic, and of their Mercantile Marine. As regards the third part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, the Polish Government are hoping eventually to have a small naval force of their own, but I am not in a position to state the attitude of the Supreme Council towards this question.

WOMEN IN INDUSTRY.

Mr. J. JONES: 77.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to accept the Report of the Committee on Women in Industry for early application to Government Departments, or whether ho is prepared to leave the decision on the principle to the judgment of the National Civil Servants Whitley Council?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A Committee of the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service is about to investigate the question of the organisation of the clerical classes in the Service, and pending a Report from that Committee the Government do not propose to come to any decision in the matter referred to by my hon. Friend.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. MOSLEY: 81.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will shortly advance ally proposals to the League of Nations for a measure of universal disarmament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government will always support the League of Nations, and any measure which may tend towards the reduction of armaments, but I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion would be practicable at present.

DOVER HOUSING SCHEME.

Viscount DUNCANNON: 84.
asked the Prime Minister whether lie is aware that the Dover housing scheme under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, is held up by the refusal of the War Office to release a piece of land in their possession known as the Ropewalk Meadow, which is required and approved by the Ministry of Health for this purpose; and whether he will intervene to prevent this housing reform being frustrated by the attitude taken up by the War Office?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that the matter is being reconsidered by the War Office and that every endeavour wilt be made to meet the wishes of the Dover Corporation.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES.

Mr. STURROCK: 85.
asked the Lord. Privy Seal whether, in view of the fact that, owing to the limited time allowed for the consideration of the Scottish Estimates earlier in the Session, many of the Votes had to be passed without discussion, he will favourably consider a proposal allow the Scottish Standing Committee to, examine these Estimates prior to their consideration in the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I cannot add anything to what I said in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen on the 12th August last.

Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister said the other day that the House of Commons is the-proper place for the consideration of financial matters; and is he also aware that under existing conditions Scottish Members have no opportunity whatever of controlling State expenditure in their own country?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry to hear and I am rather surprised to find that the influence of Scottish Members is so small. The question as to what Votes should he taken in this House does not rest with the Government, but with the Opposition, and if they select Scottish Estimates opportunities will be given.

ROYAL AIR SERVICE.

AEROPLANES.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 89.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether large numbers of aeroplanes have been destroyed by burning in the occupied districts of France and Belgium; whether aeroplanes of the newest type were being delivered under contracts until the summer of this year; and whether the Canadian Government, adopting a different policy, disposed of similar aircraft with commercial advantage?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): In answer
to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, instructions have been given: (a) that any aircraft declared obsolete for all purposes (i.e., Air Force and civil) shall be reduced to produce, and the produce handed to the Disposal Board; and (b)that any aircraft totally wrecked and beyond repair shall be reduced to produce, and the wreckage burned after removal of all parts of value. The number of crashed aircraft burnt after the removal of the valuable parts under (b)has been twenty-eight. In addition, since the 1st July, 1919, the residue of 259 crashed and 359 deteriorated or obsolete machines has been burnt after the valuable parts had been removed the answer to the second part is in the affirmative. I have no official knowledge of the matter referred to in the third part of my hon. Friend's question, but I think lie has in mind a transaction carried out by the representative of the Ministry of Munitions in Canada on behalf of His Majesty's Government. If I am correct, I would refer him to the Minister of Munitions.

COMMERCIL AVIATION (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE).

Colonel BURGOYNE: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether any subsidy, or advantages in lieu of subsidy, is being made by the Government to aviation firms for the development of commercial aviation; and if so, which are the firms and what is the nature of the subsidy?

Major-General SEELY: The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend is that whilst no direct subsidies are being made by the Government for the development of civil aviation, assistance is given to all firms desirous of receiving it in the following directions: The free supply of meteorological information and free communication services wireless, signals, flying directions, etc.). Arrangements are also in hand for the establishment of a system of emergency landing grounds throughout the country which will be open to all firms who wish to make use of them. At Government aerodromes, other than those required purely for Royal Air Force services, aerodrome facilities and shedding is available for all firms on lease, thus saving them a considerable proportion of the initial capital expenditure.

An HON. MEMBER: What is the contemplated cost of all these advantages which are being offered to these private firms?

Major-General SEELY: The cost is comparatively small, as my hon. Friend will see if he looks at the list, and the advantages are very great. I can give the hon. Member a precise estimate if he likes.

AIRSHP R. 38 (SALE TO UNITED STATES).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Air Ministry whether he has made any arrangements with the United States Government for the building of a Rigid Airship in this country for the United States Navy?

Major-General SEELY: Arrangements have been made between the United States Navy and the Air Ministry by which the Airship R. 38 embodying the newest features in design and construction will be completed without delay. The vessel will be handed over to United States Naval personnel on completion, and will proceed to America with her American crew as soon as the shed to house her is ready. The United States Navy will take over the vessel at cost price, the Royal Air Force undertaking the training of the American Naval personnel, free of cost except pay and rations.

PARCEL POST (BASKETS).

Captain HACKING: 92.
asked the Postmaster-General why the use of skips for the conveyance of parcels was abolished about five years ago; and whether, in view of the number of parcels which are damaged owing to the use of ordinary mail sacks for the conveyance by rail, etc., he will consider the advisability of again using skips?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Bags, as well as baskets, were always largely used by the Post Office for the conveyance of parcels, and with a view to greater convenience in handling and economy of space the use of bags was made general for inland mails in 1910. Experience shows that parcels properly packed are conveyed safely in bags and that the cases of damage are relatively few. I do not consider that I should be justified in reverting to the use of baskets, which would add considerably to the bulk and weight of parcel mails.

TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES (MIDDLESBROUGH).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 94.
asked the Postmaster-General if inconvenience and distress in cases of illnesses and accidents arc caused by the recent regulation prohibiting the dispatch of all telegrams after seven p.m. by the ordinary public in the county borough of Middlesbrough; and will he give instructions for the former facilities to be restored whereby in cases of urgency telegrams can be dispatched after seven p.m. on payment of an extra fee?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Under present arrangements the public may dispatch telegrams on payment of the ordinary late fees from Middlesbrough Head Post Office after the ordinary hours of business at any time except from 6.30 p.m. till midnight on Sundays.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ADAMSON: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make to the House in view of the defeat sustained by the Government last Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): When the Aliens Bill is called, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes to make a full statement on the subject.

Orders of the Day — ALIENS RESTRICTION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 4.—(Pilotage Certificates.)

No alien shall hold a pilotage certificate for any port in the United Kingdom.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I beg to move, at the end, to add the words:
Except that the provisions of Section 24 of the Pilotage Act, 1913, shall continue to apply to the renewal and issue of certificates entitling a master or mate of French nationality to navigate his ship into the ports of Newhaven and Grimsby.
Before the House adjourned on Thursday it was agreed that an opportunity should be given to the Government in the time between then and to-day to consider what steps we should take in connection with the Bill then before the House. I propose to state, very briefly, the course which the Government recommend to the House. The House will recollect that the particular point in regard to which the Division, to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adamson) referred with doubtful satisfaction took place had reference not merely to our own policy, but also to one of our Allies. It seems to me, therefore, and I am sure that the House will agree with me in this, that it is necessary without any delay and at the first opportunity to settle once and for all that particular point. I propose, therefore, to move an Amendment dealing with that point, and, after it has been decided by the House, we shall proceed, or propose to proceed, with the business set down for this week, and the further stages of the Aliens Bill will be taken next week. In the interval there will be some Amendments proposed by the Government and probably some others which will be upon the Order Paper. With regard to the particular point which I am asking the House to discuss to-day. We were considering Clause 4 of the Aliens Bill. I am glad to find that it is in order to move an Amendment to that Bill dealing with this point to which I have referred, and I shall now submit it to the House, feeling confident that the House will accept it, and, for the reason which I have already hinted at, I venture
to hope that not only will the House accept it, but that it will accept it without any difference of opinion whatever:

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: If he has got a pilotage certificate?

Mr. BONARLAW: Yes; it is to continue what was allowed before to these particular men. The reason why I consider this—as I am sure the House will—a matter of great importance is because of its international significance. In a case of this kind it is not merely a question of what exactly is done by the Government or by the House of Commons. It is a question quite as much of the impression which is created by that Act, at a time like this, when, as every Member of the House knows, there has been for some mouths in a certain section of the Press, and once or twice, though riot often I am glad to say, in speeches in the French Parliament, a suggestion that we, the British people, have already forgotten the way in which we have worked together throughout the War, and are no longer friendly. I am perfectly certain that that criticism has no foundation whatever. It is far more important than any question of what to do in this House to a Government, that it should be made absolutely clear that there is no such feeling in any section of the House. The particular point, I think, can be explained, I hope to the satisfaction of the House, in a very few words. There has never been any question that British pilotage ought, as a matter of principle, to be confined to men of British nationality. That is not in any sense, and has not been in my time, a party question. As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the head of the Government (Mr. Lloyd George)—who does not belong to be party to which I belong —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh‡"]—well, perhaps I belong to his—my right hon. Friend was the first, when he was President of the Board of Trade, to lay down that principle, and to carry it into effect. In consequence of his action then the French Government pressed the claims of the particular men referred to in this Amendment. They attached so much importance to it that the President for two years pressed it with all the strength that he could, and after a long series of negotiations an agreement was reached. That agreement did not take the form of any definite Convention by the negotiations resulted in this: The French Government declared that they would be satisfied if
the provision proposed by the Government of the day were placed in the Act of 1913. That provision was placed in the Act and it received the sanction of the House of Commons.
Apart altogether from the merits of the case, I do really think that if we were to do away with that agreement there would be not only ground for misconception, but there would he a real grievance, which I am sure the House would not for a moment wish to see. Let me put the position as I see it. Suppose the position were reversed. This is exactly how the matter stands. It is less than a year since we were fighting with the French, not only as Allies in a common cause, but it is less than a year since that millions of British people were on French soil fighting with our French comrades there practically as part of the same Army. Suppose it had been suggested in this House twelve months ago that an agreement that we had come to with the French, and to which they attached importance before the War, was going to be overthrown within a year of the end of that War. That would have been absolutely unthinkable, and I venture to say that it is equally unthinkable to-day. For that reason I am sure the House will agree that the Government. have no alternative—none whatever—to accepting, in one form or other, words making it clear to the French Government and the French people that we do intend to adhere to that agreement. I am sure that no Government could take any other course. But there is something which I think is more important even than the view of the Government on a question of this kind. It is far more important that the French Government should realise that it is the view of the House of Commons—which is more important than that of any Government. That is the position.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Why were we not told this on Thursday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my hon. Friend will not wish me to go into that. It is not very easy to make a position, complicated like this, quite plain. I am quite certain that if I had happened to be in the House and had attempted to explain the position on Thursday I should not have succeeded better than my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh‡"] But we do not want to raise questions of that kind now. Personally I think there is no doubt—there has not been doubt in
any of our minds—as to what the vote of the House of Commons meant. It is important, however, not only that we should realise, but that our friends and Allies should realise it. I have read the Debate very carefully, and I have tried to focus in soy mind the reasons which led to that vote. There are many of them, and I think I understand them all. Let me try to deal very briefly with some of them and with the facts in regard to them. In the first place, although this has nothing to do with our relations with France, there is, I am sure, a feeling in the House that since this question had been thoroughly discussed in Committee and the Committee had conic to a decision the House wished to back up the Committee in the decision it came to. That is natural. It is quite evident that if our system of Standing Committees is to be continued it must be made quite clear that they are really to take the place of Committees of the House. They would become useless, and Members would take no interest in them if the idea were to gain ground that whenever there was anything passed the Government did not like it would at once try to reverse it on the floor of the House. This is not a new idea. There is no one who has a greater interest in or a greater desire for the success, under present conditions, of this Committee system, because without it we cannot get the necessary legislation through. This is a repetition of what I said in moving the Procedure Motion—
we shall destroy the usefulness of these Standing, Committees altogether if we give them the impression that, after careful and minute work, what they do is going to be upset again on the floor of the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1919, col. 1278, Vol. 112.]
4.0 P.M.
But this has nothing to do with this subject. I can assure the House that not only myself, but the whole of the Government, realise it is our business, as far as we can, to strengthen the hands of these Committees, and to avoid doing anything to lessen their usefulness. There are other considerations which hon. Members had in mind. Two of those were that there should be a complete "clean cut." as it was called in the Debate—that unless no foreigners were allowed at all to fill this position, we should find, by the mysterious operation of the most-favoured-nation Clause, or in some other way, that the whole thing was being reopened, and that we should drift back again into the posi-
tion in which we were at the time war broke out. There was another feeling—I sympathise with it, for in the early days, when I was a young Member of the House, I took a great interest in the Aliens Bill at that time and we thought we had done something; I am referring now to the party to which I belong—we came to the conclusion that what we had done was largely upset by the action of the Department. Those are feelings we can understand. I am sure that many Members felt that through Departmental action, or in some other way, there was a danger of the whole thing being annulled. I think I have rightly interpreted what influenced a large number of those who took part in this discussion. I believe that the Amendment, as it was settled by the Committee, could have avoided the risk of these dangers. That is my opinion. In any case it is an advantage to know exactly what ewe —I mean the House of Commons and the Government—desire. It is an advantage that it should be put in the clearest possible way. The Amendment which I now move does make it perfectly plain. If it is any satisfaction to the House I shall add this: that I have the authority of the Law Officers for saying that by no method except by a new Act of Parliament can the privilege which is given to the French under this Amendment be extended in any direction whatever in regard to pilotage.
There is another consideration which, I think, influenced some hon. Members. They desired that there should be reciprocity. That is reasonable. But I venture to say to the House, and I am sure every hon. Member will agree with me, that if that ought to be attained, this is not the way to attain it, nor do I think this is the time. If an agreement has been entered into between any two Governments, and most of all between two Governments which are in the relationship to each other in which the French and the British Governments are, that ought not to be -done by a vote of the House of Commons without the power of negotiating, without the power of hearing what the French have to say. That ought to be done only after negotiations, and the result of those negotiations could be put into a Bill. That is my view on the merits of the point. As a matter of fact, I think there is most complete reciprocity as possible. It would be quite possible to put it in a way which would be more or less accurate.
We could say, for instance, with truth, that a British ship under these conditions going into a French port does pay something for pilotage, but a French ship under the same conditions coming a British port does not pay anything for pilotage. Let me put it in other words and the House will see that it is complete reciprocity. 'What I have said is true, but, on the other hand, it is true that a British ship going into a French port under this arrangement pays precisely the same dues, including what is paid for pilotage, as are paid by a French ship in the same position. Could you have by any possibility greater reciprocity than this as a question of a practical arrangement—that the British ships are treated in precisely the same way in which French ships are treated under precisely the same conditions in British ports? I do not think the House wishes me to labour the question any further.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: What about the Belgian pilots?

Mr. BONARLAW: They are not affected, and cannot be brought in under this Amendment, which is confined absolutely to the French. It is limited to a limited number of Frenchmen. I do not think I need say more. I agree that I should not be in order, nor do I think it would be very desirable to refer to other incidents connected with the vote on Thursday, but perhaps I may say, in passing, that it was rather a curiosity—I certainly do not remember a case in my Parliamentary lifetime—because it was a case of a Government being defeated. by the votes of those who were undoubtedly its own friends. Let me say this: We are quite certain that the majority which gave the decision on Thursday was composed of hon. Members who are not only in name but who are in reality friends and supporters of the Government. We not only believe that, but we arc certain of it. If we were not certain of it, then I am bound to say—and I am sure I speak for my right hon. Friend the head of the Government as much as for myself—that if we were not so certain, we should not have been here to-day as representing His Majesty on the floor of the House of Commons. If it is curious from that point of view, it is curious from another point of view. I happened to read a journal which is supposed to represent more or less—perhaps less rather than more—the views of Labour Members who sit on the bench
opposite. This article said that the Government were defeated when for once they were in the right. If the "Daily Herald" was right, it is a curious coincidence that of the members of the party which that paper is supposed more or less to represent, not one voted for what was right, but forty voted for what was wrong.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What about the "Morning Post"?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is by the way. I really wish the House to look upon this from the point of view which I put before them at first. After a war like this, a world convulsion such as we have seen, when an attempt is made to settle, when the cohesive power which has kept the Allies together during the War is gone, nothing is more important, and nothing could be more vital to the world, than that the good feeling between France and this country which prevailed during the War should continue in the settlement. We have had difficult negotiations. They have been made in every case without friction. There was plenty of plain statement of each other's point of view by my right hon. Friend and the head of the French Government, who was even franker than he, if that were possible. There has been plenty of that, but there has been nothing but understanding and good will up to now. The negotiations which have still to go forward dealing with the settlement of the Turkish Empire raise questions which touch national prejudices and feelings more closely than any of the discussions which have taken place up to now. For that reason I venture to hope that we shall have a unanimous vote on this Amendment, for nothing could be more important than that we should make it plain, not only to the French Government, but to the French people that every one of us, from His Majesty downwards, has still the same feeling of respect and admiration for those who have been our comrades in the field.

Mr. ADAMSON: We have had a very interesting explanation from the Leader of the House of the steps that the Government propose to take in order to get over the difficulty in which they have been placed by the vote of the House on Thursday last. I do not think, so far as I am personally concerned, that the explanation that has been given by the
Leader of the House goes far enough. The Leader of the House told us at the close of business on Thursday that the Government would take into consideration the steps that were necessary in order to overcome the difficulties in which they had been placed, and he has outlined to a considerable extent the steps that they have taken and the considerations which have been borne in mind by them as a Government. But, curiously enough, he has not said a word concerning those Members of the House outside the Government who have been taken into consultation in the interval regarding this matter. We have been left to gather our information on this very important point from the newspapers. I desire to ask the Leader of the House or some of his colleagues if they do not think that this is a question of sufficient importance on which to consult the other sections of the House who were in opposition to the particular Clause which was under discussion when the vote was taken on Thursday last? As the right hon. Gentleman has already pointed out, the Labour party almost unanimously-—

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What about Thomas?

Mr. ADAMSON: —voted against the Government on that occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame‡"] That may or may not be. Does not the Leader of the House think that they should have been called into consultation?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, nobody‡

Mr. ADAMSON: The point is this, that the members of the Labour party are as anxious as any section of the House, including the Government itself, to maintain the most friendly relations with the French people, and surely when so important a matter as this is involved they had some claim to he consulted as well as other sections of the House who were consulted, according to the newspapers. The newspapers go further. They inform us that, in addition to these Members of the House being consulted, before an agreement was come to a bargain was made between those Members and the Government. I would like to know what are the terms of the bargain that is reputed to have been made between the Government and the Members referred to. If a bargain has been made of the kind that we see stated in some of the newspapers of the
country it was a most undignified position for the Government to take up. Under such circumstances, if the Government had had any self-respect they would have resigned. Evidently, however, they arc prepared to accept that humiliation in order to enjoy the fruits of office for a little longer. I think we should have a statement from some member of the Government on the particular point I have raised. We ought to know if conditions were laid down and accepted by the Government regarding the other Clauses of this Bill before those Members who were called into consultation agreed to withdraw their opposition.

Sir EDWARD CARSON: I was one of those Members referred to by my right hon. Friend, and I can assure him that I do not care one jot or tittle whether I was consulted or not. But I hope my right hon. Friend opposite is not going to lay down that the only Members who are ever to be consulted are the Labour party. I hardly ever take up a newspaper without seeing that 10, Downing Street, inside and outside, was crammed with the Labour party. The truth of the matter is that the Labour party have been so indulged by the Government, ever since this Government came into power, that, although they are a small minority in this House, if the truth were known they really think no one ought to be considered or heard but themselves. The great mistake the Labour party make, in my opinion, is that they think they are the community, whereas they are at most only an important section of the community. I am one of those who, having been a long time in the House, think that a great deal too much importance is attached to votes on details and their results, either in Committee or upon Report. I think one of the most ridiculous portions of our procedure was that if you carried an Amendment which the great bulk of the House thought was a right Amendment, you thereby created a political crisis. It is absurd. I remember Amendments being moved in the old political fights which were rejected because the Government would have been bound to treat them as votes of confidence, and many members of the Government used to come over to us afterwards and say, "You know you were right on that Amendment, but we dared not do it." Is not that an absurd position for the great British House of Commons to be in? One thing I fervently hope will
come out of our new procedure with these Committees upstairs is that these votes, trying to bring a Bill into unison with the general desire of the House, will be treated as business and not political measures. I am perfectly sure if that was once firmly laid down by the House of Commons itself you would get far better legislation in detail than you do at present, and what is more, you would bring to bear upon your Bills, for a useful purpose, the individual knowledge and ability of each individual in this House, which was by the old system entirely discouraged as being rather a nuisance more than anything else, however able and however knowledgable the individual who moves the Amendment may be.
Having said so much, let me say, so far as I was concerned, and I think the bulk of the House on Thursday last, there was and could be no intention to offer any affront to our great and loved ally, France. It is absurd to think of it. The hearts of the people of this country are still throbbing in unison with that great nation and are still picturing to themselves the great suffering and devastation and their efforts to evolve their own reconstruction under difficulties which are even greater than our own. No; the French part of the question was a very small one. What the House was not satisfied about was that the Clause as framed could not or might not be extended to those who are not, never were, and probably never will be, our allies, and the House by its vote meant this. They will not in future, as they have in the past, leave our ports open to the officers of foreign ships, treating foreign masters and mates exactly in the same way as we treat our own men. What the House determined was that that was to be put an end to for all time so far as this House of Commons was concerned, and the Government were unable to satisfy us that that was the effect of the Amendment which was on the Paper on Thursday. As I understand, the Amendment that is now before the House is of a very limited character. It confines it to already existing licences, which may be renewed to the masters and mates of certain ships passing into two ports only in the United Kingdom. That is a purely limited privilege to a very small class of the Mercantile Marine of France. But as I understand, the Law Officers have said—and I am sure they are right—looking at the Section of the Act of 1913, that the conditions laid down by that Section, which will enable any other
nationality to claim most-favoured treatment under the most-favoured-nation Clause, cannot arise in reference to any other nationality. If that is so, we are now dealing solely and exclusively with those few pilots referred to in the Amendment, and I am sure the House will be satisfied that that concession ought to be continued to our great Ally, France, but at the same time they will also feel satisfaction that it is now beyond all doubt that they are the only foreigners who can obtain, as they have obtained hitherto, a pilot's certificate to navigate into our ports. I think the course the Government have taken has been a very wise one, and I think also that what they ask for, namely, a unanimous vote of this House in favour of this concession, is one that the House will readily give.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Before the House proceeds as I am sure it will, to the suggestion of the Leader of the House, and gives a unanimous vote on this question, may I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the next stage of the Bill. I understand that a very important Report by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee has been submitted to the Government. I have no personal knowledge of the work of that Special Committee, but I have for two or three years had very considerable knowledge of similar work, and if my experience of the past is of any use at all with regard to what is likely to be in that Report, the information in it will be of the very greatest service to the House in considering some of the most important Clauses of the Bill still left for the House's consideration, and I hope that Report can be printed and issued to the House. With regard to the particular question, I was one of those who did not vote at all on the last occasion. I did not regard it at all as sonic people seem to have regarded it, as a matter of such importance as to call upon the Government to consider whether they should resign or not. I am only glad they have looked at it in the way in which the late Lord Justice Bowen regarded going to sea on a Friday. It was not necessarily fatal, but very unfortunate.

Mr. INSKIP: I am quite sure the impression will be a wrong one if it gets abroad that the House was voting under any misapprehension upon the issue which was in
volved when it gave its vote on Thursday, although at the same time we fully accept and welcome the statement of the Leader of the House, and in view of his statement I am sure every section of the House will accept the Amendment in the terms in which he has proposed it. In those quarters where we are accustomed to look every morning for our instructions as to the way in which we shall vote and speak, there seems to be some impression that we were thinking of anything but the Aliens Bill. We were not thinking of anything but the Aliens Bill. Our vote was not intended to show any diminution of our confidence in the Leader of the House or in the policy which die supports. Our action was directed—and I am speaking as one who made the first speech against the Amendment—to preventing the issue and renewal of certificates to aliens other than those of French nationality, and the fact is that of the pilotage certificates of which we heard so much on Thursday no fewer than seventeen were issued to men who were not of French nationality. Eleven of them were Dutchmen, three were Belgian, two were Swedes and one was a Dane, and under the Clause as submitted by the Home Secretary everyone of those certificates would have boon renewed. Under the Clause as now proposed by the Leader of the House these certificates will not be renewed. We were twitted with making a great issue of a matter of no importance because only twenty-four certificates were involved. If we had had that frank and well-informed statement that we might have expected we should have been told that only four certificates were in question, namely, the four certificates which were granted to masters or mates of French nationality, two of which are used for navigating steamers from Dieppe to Newhaven and two for navigating steamers from St. Nazaire also to Newhaven. The issue was one of even less importance than the President of the Board of Trade led the House to believe. I think the House will have the satisfaction of knowing, at any rate, that the attitude which it took up on Thursday has led to the final declaration of the law that no certificates will in future be granted to any except members of the French nation, and that we are happy and proud to grant them that indulgence by reason of our age long alliance with them as well as the alliance which we have had with them in the last few years. I should like also to say
this on behalf of the pilots for whom I speak, that they have acted throughout in the fullest co-operation and amity with their brothers the French pilots, and the Amendment now proposed by the Government will have the full assent of the pilots on both sides of the Channel. If the pilots have to thank anyone for this, it is not those who were the spokesmen on behalf of the Government on Thursday, but the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister for the enactment which they now propose and which we fully and willingly accept.

Mr. WIGNALL: I have no apology to make for my speech on Thursday, and I have no apology to make for the vote I gave on Thursday. Although the issue has been somewhat narrowed down by the explanation of the Leader of the House, I was in no doubt whatever as to what was meant when we went through the Division Lobby, because the amended Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) made it perfectly clear what we were voting upon. I welcome this opportunity to say that there was no desire on my part or on the part of my colleagues to create friction or misunderstanding between this nation and our Allies on the question of reciprocity. We have heard about the number of certificates that have been issued by the Board of Trade to the French shipmasters. How many certificates have been issued by the French Government to our British shipmasters? Can you tell us? I am informed that there is not a single one in existence, and the reason for that Ts that it is of no value, because the compulsory pilotage dues that have to be paid at French ports, whether you have a pilot or not, makes all the difference. We conic back to the one issue—of what can be saved by abolishing the need for taking on hoard a pilot. I see clearly that the sense of the House now is to accept the narrow issue involved, and it is so narrow that it is hardly worth quibbling or quarrelling about. I suppose the Government have been saved and our honour has been vindicated. At the commencement of the Debate on Thursday there was no question of an issue between England and France. It was "all aliens." If you read your own Amendment, and if you read the Clause in the Pilotage Act of 1913, it is clear that "all aliens" are concerned.
That put the spirit of fight into us, and we have brought you to your bearings, at any rate.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do admire the way in which, for the public benefit, the whip was cracked and they all came to heel. Beautifully stage managed ‡ After all, we are the House of Commons, and we might perhaps inquire what was the quid pro quo for the beautiful docility of the alien hunters which we see to-day. The Press has told us. They defeated the Government, but they have been to Downing Street, and they have reversed their policy and accepted that of the Government. What did the Government give them in order to get this acquiescence? That is what we want to know; that is what the House of Commons have a right to know. I am told that they did not even get a cup of tea, it is not a question of knighthoods or cups of tea, it is a question of public importance. When this Bill came down from the Committee, the Government, represented by the Home Office, definitely, in face of the recommendations of the Committee, decided that it would he intolerable if certain Clauses passed in Committee were brought into law. There are Clauses 7 and 8. Clause 7 deals with aliens changing their names, and Clause 8 deals with the deportation of all former enemy aliens in this country. The Home Office, which, after all, has in its permanent officials some glimmerings of Liberalism left, decided that it would be intolerable, and that the English name would be dragged in the mud if this provision for deporting all enemy aliens went through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed, agreed ‡"] I know you are agreed about it, but I am not. If all the English-born wives of enemy aliens are to be deported, because the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) happened to heat the Government on a snap Division, it will be a scandal in English history What would happen if the same sort of legislation were introduced in other countries? The Home Office and the Home Secretary knew that these Amendments put in in Committee upstairs could not stand, and six of these Gentlemen went to Downing Street. [HON. MEMBERS "Nine ‡"] Nine? More dangerous still. The nine went to Downing Street and they bargained with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has not attended the Debates on this Bill, and he has probably never heard of Clause 7,
but, wishing to have harmony in the House, he agreed to whatever was proposed.
We were told in the Press on Saturday morning, in the "Times,'' which is always well-informed, in the "Manchester Guardian," and the "Daily News," that a bargain had been come to at Downing Street, and the bargain was that the Home Office were to remove the embargo from Clause 8 and allow the deportation of all former aliens, except those licensed by the Home Secretary. That is what the alien hunters and Jew baiters have been pressing for. Now they have got their way. Speaking in the name of those who supported the Government in the Division on Thursday—and there are many others who voted for the Government because they wished to back them up, and they did stand up against the alien hunters—for they did stand up against them once or twice—we have a right to protest now. When the Government did stand up against these Jew baiters we did back them up, and now they come to terms with them and sell the whole pass. I think the Government should consider a third alternative before they bring this Bill on again. This Bill is dishonouring to the English name, and if the Prime Minister has read it he will know that it is. He knows perfectly well that these anti-alien Bills arc the only legislation a Tory Government can bring forward. Tie has only to read through the provisions of this Bill to know that every fibre in his body is against the whole thing. The Bill is a disgrace to us. It is a piece of reactionary legislation. It is a Bill which history will hold up as an example of what was done in the way of panic legislation by English gentlemen after the War. I do beg the Government to consider what to do in this situation, and to consider the alternative of dropping this Bill and allowing these Jew baiters to yap. They will always come to heel, believe me, for they dare not face the country.

Colonel YATE: I understand that this Amendment. refers solely to cross-Channel traffic, hut there, is no mention of cross-Channel traffic in it, and I would ask the Leader of the House if it would not be better to put in the words "cross-Channel traffic," to show that it is limited to cross-Channel traffic. Perhaps when this Bill goes to the other House the Government will consider the advisability of
meeting the views of the House in regard to undesirable aliens, and see if something cannot he done to get rid of undesirable aliens.

Mr. STEWART: Can the Leader of the House see his way to print and publish as a White Paper the Convention upon which the Home Secretary has founded his Amendment? The Government were defeated in July on this point, and at the end of October they were not at all clear, according to the statements made from the Front Bench last Thursday, as to what the Convention really was. I think it would be much better for the country and the pilots if the actual wording of the Convention were known.

Mr. BONAR LAW: The question raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Stewart) shows how difficult it is to make one's meaning clear. In the statement I have made I said there was no Convention. What happened was that negotiations resulted in an agreement, and the French Government accepted as a statement of that agreement the terms of the Pilotage Act of 1913, so that there can be no Convention, and it is quite unnecessary to print any White Paper. In regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member [Colonel late), this Amendment is not merely limited to cross-Channel traffic. It is limited to those who have the privilege now under existing arrangements, and applies to two ports, and not merely to cross-Channel traffic. Therefore, we could not put in the words "cross-Channel." The right hon. Gentleman [Sir D. Maclean) asked about a memorandum from Mr. Justice Younger. It is not a memorandum by Mr. Justice Younger's Committee. At the request of the Home Secretary Mr. Justice Younger did make a statement to him, not on the case we are discussing now, but on the case referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. We should not readily make public documents given for a particular purpose to particular Ministers. There is a further objection, and that is that if a section of the House did not agree with the views of Mr. Justice Younger nothing would be more undesirable than that the words of a judge should be used in ordinary party controversies. I will, however, consult the Prime Minister in regard to the matter.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I thought it was a memorandum from the Committee.

Mr. BONAR LAW: No.

Sir D. MACLEAN: If it was simply a report from Mr. Justice Younger I shall not press for it. I thought it was an agreed memorandum from the Committee.

Mr. ADAMSON: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether any bargains have been made with Members of the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that the House would want me to go into that. Why should we? Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that the Prime Minister or I, as Leader of the House acting for him, may not be at liberty to consult any Member of the House we like?

Mr. ADAMSON: That is not the point. The point I was putting is: has the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House entered into a bargain with these Gentlemen?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No. What has happened has happened, I believe, in the case of every contentious Bill that has ever gone through the House of Commons. Ministers in charge have consulted, in regard to particular Amendments, those who are chiefly interested in pressing those Amendments. That is all that was done.

Major BARNES: As one of those who supported the Government in the Debate on Thursday night—it is not very often that I have supported the Government since I came here, and, as a rule, when I have, they have been defeated—I do think that some injustice has been clone in this Debate to the right hon. Gentlemen who were in charge of the Bill on Thursday night. The impression produced, or intended to be produced, in the House this afternoon is that the whole of this situation would have been cleared up by a fuller and clearer explanation being given by the right hon. Gentleman who leads the House. That is an entire travesty of the situation. The situation was perfectly understood on Thursday night, and we had a speech by the hon. Member for Bristol, who has admitted that. A great deal has been said during the week of the way in which the right hon. Members who were in charge of the Bill on Thursday night led the House, and it has been suggested that they misled the House. That is not true. Naturally they did not attempt to make any deals with the Opposition, but they did place the issue fully and squarely before the House, and I think that every
Member of the House understood what was the point upon which he was voting. I quite agree that the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Bonar Law) is perfectly correct when he says that no Member, whether he voted against the Government or not, had any desire or intention in the slightest degree to offer any affront to the great French people. That is perfectly true. It is also, perfectly true that the 122 Members of the House who voted against the Government were, as he says, its firm friends and supporters, and had no desire that their votes should place the Government in a difficult position, and I can quite understand that they are very anxious that the matter should not be discussed, and that the vote should be passed with very little debate. But the fact is that the House is not being treated frankly.
We know perfectly well that much more has gone on than has been told us this afternoon, and the submissiveness of the 122 Gentlemen who voted against the Government and the way in which they and the Government have accepted the situation show that there is more than is contained in the explanation given by the Lord Privy Seal. Why are we not proceeding with the Bill? Why is the Bill postponed for a week? It will be surprising if, when the Bill is proceeded with, we do not find that the Government is withdrawing from the stand which it proposed to take before Thursday night. We shall see. Wait and see. I want to take my stand with the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in the courageous attitude en this whole question. The Division on Thursday night gave the Government. a great chance. They might have dropped the Bill, which is one which will do no credit to the English Statute Book. It is a Bill which cuts athwart the whole of the policy that can alone save the world. We have got the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord H. Cecil) going through the country at the present time, holding great meetings and gaining au enthusiastic public response to the policy of the League of Nations, and this is the time at which this House is called on to deal with a Bill of this sorry kind which cuts at the policy of the League of Nations. How are we ever going to get the League of Nations if we are going to—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot in this debate discuss the question of the League of Nations.

Major BARNES: I simply wish to put on record my opinion that we have not been treated frankly this afternoon. The whole of the circumstances attending the negotiations of the Government with the Members who opposed them on Thursday night have not been made known to the House, but I have not the slightest doubt that it will all come out within the week and that we shall know fully and exactly what was done.

Lord H. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will ascertain from Mr. Justice Younger whether he has any objection to having his memorandum laid before the house? I am sure it would be of great value.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry that the Noble Lord has misunderstood the question of my hon. Friend. What has been referred to is a private memorandum from Mr. Justice Younger for the use of the Home Secretary, and I doubt whether it would be wise to lay that, but a Report has been sent in which only reached the Home Secretary this afternoon, and I am inclined to think that that ought to be laid. If a question is put to me or the Home Secretary to-morrow a definite answer will be given.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SEX DISQUALIFICATION (REMOVAL) BILL [Lords.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1— (Removal of Disqualification on Grounds of Sex.)

A person shall not be disqualified by sex from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming any civil profession or vocation, or for admission to any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise), and a person shall not be exempted by sex from the liability to serve as a juror:
Provided that—

(a) notwithstanding anything in this Section, His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise Regulations to be made pre-
344
scribing the mode of admission of women to the civil service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which women admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, and providing for the exclusion of women from admission to any branch of the civil service in any of His Majesty's possessions, or in any foreign country; and
(b) any judge, chairman of quarter sessions, recorder or other person before whom the case is heard may, in Ids discretion, on an application made by or on behalf of the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and the accused) or any of them, or at his own instance, make an order that having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given, the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only as the cast may require, or may on an application made by a woman to be exempted from service on a jury in respect of that case by reason of the nature of the evidence to be given or of the issues to be tried, grant such exemption.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, after the word "sex," to insert the words "or marriage."
This question has two aspects. The first object of the Amendment is to make the Clause apply in cases where there might be some legal disqualification imposed on women by marriage. It might be that there would be a survival of an ancient law under which the mere fact that a woman is married might disqualify her from an office which otherwise she would be entitled to hold, and it is desired to snake quite sure that such disqualifications shall not exist. But in addition to that the Amendment has a much wider bearing. Clause 1 of the Bill opens to women all professions. They can exercise public functions or enter or assume any profession or vocation and among those are the public services. The ordinary rule in the Civil Service is that a woman has gut to resign on her marriage, and I ask the Government to consider whether it is a good thing that that rule should be continued. The only grounds on which its continuance might be defended would be those of the interests of the State or of the woman or of her family. As far as the State is concerned as long as the woman serves the State properly she ought to be entitled to carry on her work after being married as well as before being married. It is well known that in private occupations married women form the very best servants of their employers. Why should not the same rule be applied to public services? Assume that there is some unknown disqualification which marriage imposes then if a woman is the worse public servant for marriage
let her be displaced for inefficiency and not for the mere fact that she has married. Then as far as the woman herself is concerned it is well known that the rule acts with great hardship. It acts as a bar to marriage. It is very hard on a woman that she should be put to the very difficult choice either of not marrying a man whom she wants to marry or of giving up her employment, and I do submit to the Committee that the restriction is one which is not in keeping with the feeling of the age, and that the time has come to remove it.
Now I come to the objection on which the House would feel most strongly. It may be said that this restriction is imposed in the interests of the children. I want to be quite sure that it is, and that we have not got any more reprehensible motive in wishing to continue the present system. I am not at all sure that behind the exclusion of married women there is not a certain wish to restrict competition and preserve for men places which women have filled in the past. I am sure that in a question of this sort great weight should be given to the views of the women them selves. All the women's organisations, who certainly have got the interests of women and children deeply at heart, support the removal of this bar, and I do very earnestly ask the Government whether they think that that is a matter to rule out. The work that men and women do is not the same, but the two spheres are equally large and equally valuable, and if you exclude women on marriage you exclude a great many women who would be most valuable and you restrict the choice of the State. The time has come for the Government to deal with this question with the new mind which the War has brought about and to sweep away this very damaging restriction. They will, I am sure, not regret it if at one stroke they sweep away all these bonds. In the interests of the women themselves, of the State and of the family, it is of urgent importance that these restrictions should be removed.

5.0 P.M.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir E. Pollock): I had intended to have accepted this Amendment without qualification, indeed almost without a speech, but a ground on which the hon. Member has moved it has indicated to me that I ought to say a few words before going further, because I have to qualify the sense in which I intend to accept it, and to deal with matters
which arise at a later stage of the Bill. This is really a very important matter. In the interests of the Bill I feel it is right to insert "or marraige" in the same way as those two words have been used consistently in all the Acts that I have looked at—the Act of 1906, the Act of 1907, and the Act of 1914. I want to give an assurance not only to my hon. Friends that this Bill is a sincere Bill intended to effect its purpose, but also to indicate to all persons outside that this is a real effort on the part of the Government to meet a difficulty and to fulfil pledges given. For those reasons I am quite ready to put in the words "or marriage," but if it is said that this Amendment is to rule out Amendments which I will have to introduce later, then I cannot accept it. The hon. Member has quite fairly put the difficulty. He has indicated that he has a sort of misgiving that in the Departments there is, a tendency not to give a fair opportunity to women. For my own part I shall be-very sorry if that view is shared in any quarter of the House. I had an opportunity while I served as Controller of a small Department, where there were certainly over 100 women employed, to see how they worked, and I wish to bear my testimony to the very high standard of work which they did and how extraordinarily useful they were. I do not, therefore, approach this matter from any hostility to the women's point of view. As the hon. Member has said, it has been, the system in the past to insist upon resignation on marriage, for reasons which I think will commend themselves to the Committee. When the Bill was given a Second Reading I prepared the figures of persons who are employed in the Departments. I find that the Post Office is quite the largest employer of women among the Departments. There are in the Post Office 86,500 women employed; in other words, in the Post Office two-thirds of the persons employed are women.

Lieut.-Colonel THORNE: How many are married?

Sir E. POLLOCK: That figure is not given. In other Departments there are employed 80,500 women. Let me take the Post Office first of all. It is a matter on which the Committee will not mind if I speak frankly. One has to consider the service of the State and of the family. From the point of view of the State we
have to consider, when women are married, the period both before and after child-birth, and it is necessary to consider whether or not you can employ women in the interests of the State under circumstances which might be a severe temptation to remain childless. The figures of the Registrar-General which have been published only recently would indicate, I think, that this Committee would be very reluctant to place any temptation before women at the present time to remain childless. If that be so, you have to consider another question. During the period before and after child-birth can they adequately discharge their duties to the State? After all, the interests of the State have to be considered. Lastly, and by no means least, one must consider the interests of the children. Is it in the interests of the children that women should be employed and by that means not be able to render their full service at home? Do not let us make up our minds too hurriedly on this question. I do not want to make a full speech on this subject, because when we come, to the proviso (a)I shall have to deal with it. Any hurried judgment might lead members of the Committee to go wrong. You must consider the interests of the State, the position of the woman herself and her capacity to render service, and you have to consider also the question of the children at home. I do not want to detain the Committee too long over that point, in order that I may make it perfectly plain that so far as any post that is open by Clause 1 should be open in spite of marriage, I shall be perfectly ready to accept the words "or marriage." I hope the hon. Member will fully understand that when we come to the question of the proviso I must, in the interests of the State, put matters before the Committee which I hope the Committee will agree with. Let me add this. I rather wish the hon. Member had given me one illustration of a case where marriage is a bar under the Bill. I cannot myself think of a case where at the present time the exercise of that function is excluded by marriage or the woman is debarred by marriage.

Sir F. BANBURY: Before my right hon. and learned Friend accepts the Amendment will he tell us what is the proviso he proposes to move? Some of us may regard with a little suspicion and fear the wholesale admission of women in
every office of the State, especially if they are married and their duties should e at home to their children and their husbands. I cannot see that proviso on the Paper. I think the Committee ought to know what is the effect of it before they accept this Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am quite ready to deal with both points at the same time, although it is not very convenient. I can hand my right hon. Friend a copy of the proviso (a) as I hope it will read when I have amended it. In the unfortunate circumstances of last week it was impossible to put down Amendments on Friday, as I had hoped. Not unnaturally, I was surprised at being deprived of that opportunity. Otherwise, the Amendments would have been on the Paper and the Committee would have seen what I desired to move. What the Bill proposes to do in proviso (a)is this—
Notwithstanding anything in this Section his Majesty may by Order in Council authorise Regulations to be made prescribing the mode of admission of women to the Civil Service of His Majesty, and the conditions on which women admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein, and providing for the exclusion of women from admission to any branch of the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's possessions or in any foreign country.
That, I think, goes unnecessarily far in the matter of exclusion. I am prepared to make Amendments that will give an assurance to women that they may have a fair opportunity of securing posts. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin has an Amendment down to leave out that particular proviso and to insert a different proviso. That, to my mind, goes too far on the other side. The effect of what I propose to do is that a woman will not be debarred by marriage from holding any office, but that it will be necessary to make regulations in the interests of the woman and of the State that she shall retire on marriage, subject, of course, to the gratuity which she receives, but preventing a married woman, for instance, who is childless, from having an opportunity of seeking employment, and also enabling the Department to make regulations in the interests of the State, of the women, and the children, in order to prescribe how far marriage shall involve disability. I shall not discuss the matter fully now. I will hand my right hon. Friend a copy of my Amendment, and later I will ask the Committee to accept it.
Amendment agreed to.

Major GREAME: I beg to move, after the word "function," to insert the words "including that of sitting and voting in the house of Lords."
I think that common sense and courtesy alike dictate that this Amendment should be inserted, and one must feel a little surprised that this bill should have come from another place without this Amendment. Apparently the House of Lords is perfectly prepared to pass a Bill entitling women to sit in the house of Commons, while they are not prepared to do so with regard to their own House. That is a position which is indefensible, I think. They have declined to afford similar facilities to sit in their own Assembly. We have Accepted the principle in the Franchise Bill that women and men, at any rate at the age of thirty years, should stand on a franchise equality, and that a woman is as much entitled as a man, provided she gets the people to vote for her, to sit in this House. It seems to be wrong that women should be debarred from sitting in the House of Lords, particularly as women hold peerages in their own right. It is a matter of common sense and common fairness and the putting as far as possible of the two Houses on a Parliamentary equality that women should have the right to sit in the House of Lords.

Mr. SPOOR: I rise to support this Amendment, not that I am particularly anxious for the continuance of the second Chamber as at present constituted. The House will remember that a few months ago a Bill was introduced by the party to which I belong and passed through all its stages in this house. In that Bill this particular point was definitely dealt with, and this house, by a fairly decisive majority, agreed that women should have the-same right to sit in the House of Lords as we think they should have in the House of Commons. After that very definite expression of opinion so recently, I hope that the Solicitor-General will see his way to accept this Amendment. It is not only a matter of courtesy and common sense, but one of elementary justice. It is not a point I need labour, and therefore I formally support.

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend who moved said that the House of Lords was willing that women should sit in this House but did not wish them to sit in the Lords. This House, legislating for itself, passed an Act which permitted women to sit here. Very few women have availed
themselves of that privilege, and I have not seen any in the House. The Lords are masters in their own House and the House of Commons are masters in theirs. If the House of Commons liked to sit with the fair sex in their midst, and continuo their deliberations assisted by beauty, that is for the House of Commons to decide. It is a very different thing for us to say, We desire that ladies should sit in the House of Lords. That is a matter surely for the House of Lords. I was one of those who voted against the admission of women into this House, as I thought it would be a mistake for reasons into which I need not now enter. For goodness sake let us leave one of the Houses with the old tradition, and let there be one House where the deliberations are conducted by men and not by women ‡ I hope that the Solicitor-General will announce that the Government have irrevocably decided that the House of Lords shall choose its own representation.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I cannot in the least agree with the hon. Baronet who has just spoken that it is for the Lords to decide who should be members of the other Chamber. That is essentially a matter for the country as a whole. I think it is equally clear that the country as a whole has decided that women are henceforth to take an equal part in the legislative affairs of this country with men if they desire to do so and if they show themselves equal to that work.

Sir F. BANBURY: Why have they not elected any?

Mr. WILLIAMS: One was elected.

Sir F. BANBURY: She was a rebel.

Mr. WILLIAMS: That may be. As long as we have a House of Peers it is only a matter of deference to the views which are now prevailing throughout the country that women should be allowed to sit in the House of Lords. The present position seems to be that a peeress is eligible to sit in this House but not to sit in the other House.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am going to ask the House to devote a little more serious energy to this Bill than the discussion of this question which is one in which 1 think we shall serve our own dignity best by leaving to the House of Lords. This Bill
has come from the Lords, and the Lords have not put in any such Amendment. The Amendment relates to the votes of something like a score of ladies and no more. I am going to ask the House to consider some very important Amendments, and I cannot help thinking that the right course for us to adopt is to say that this is a matter which really belongs to the privileges of the House of Lords, and that it is far better that we should not invade their privileges. I am not saying that we have not the right to do so, but I would ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Major GREAME: May I say that this Amendment is regarded by those who have proposed it as an Amendment of real importance. This is an Act placing both sexes on an equality in this country, and those with whom I am acting feel strongly that this is a point of substance and not merely a specious point. At the same time I appreciate that if this Amendment were persisted in it might possibly lead to a conflict of opinion between the two Houses, and I quite admit it is not a convenient point on which to take an issue if that kind. Under those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw.

The CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

HON. MEMBERS: No, no‡

Sir E. POLLOCK: Perhaps I treated the Amendment rather shortly. Let us remember that this Bill has to go back to the House of Lords, and if an Amendment of this sort were accepted we should be disagreeing with the other House on what after all is a comparatively small matter. There are a number of anomalies in the constitution, and for us to take a serious step in this matter is to my mind showing a rather want of dignity on our part. The Bill is a very important Bill, and we have a number of very important Amendments, and I do hope that under those circumstances the Committee may allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We have been told twice that this is a matter which concerns some twenty ladies, but that, I submit, is an entirely wrong view of the matter. It is, to my mind, extremely important that
the women's point of view should be heard, and as directly as possible, in all legislative matters in the Houses of Parliament. In this House the woman's point of view is represented by people who have been elected pledged to that point of view, and it may at any moment be represented by women themselves. As long as the House of Lords retains its hereditary character there is only one possible way in which the women's point of view can be heard in the other House, and that is by Peeresses sitting there. Therefore I contend that this is much more than a question affecting twenty ladies, but that it is a question affecting the whole woolen's point of view in the legislation of this country. Legislation which is debated here from the woman's point of view should no longer go to the Lords without women having an opportunity there to represent the woman's point of view. Therefore I sincerely hope that my Friends will divide in favour of this Amendment.

Major NALL: I am extremely sorry the Solicitor-General takes the line he has taken. In the last few days we have had what was supposed to be a crisis, which has been adjusted because of the international matters involved. This question does not involve any international matters. A great many Members of all parties in the House feel quite strongly on this question. I do not want to go into details, but if women are to be admitted to public life, as Parliament has already decided they shall be, and the country has generally accepted, the obvious logical conclusion is that they should be represented in the other place. I am not prepared to vote against the Government, and all that several of us can do is to abstain, if we do anything at all, but we shall certainly not support the Government in the attitude which has been announced by the Solicitor-General. I ask the representatives on the Treasury Bench to consider that there are Members of the House who are pledged, and who have views on this question, and we are not prepared to take the old line which has held good for so many years. I hope the House will support the Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171;. Noes, 84.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[5.32 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.) 
O;Neill, Captain Hell, Robert W. H.



Gwynne, R. S.



Adamson, R. Hon. William
Hail, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, R.-Adml. Sir W. R. (Lpl, W. Derby)
Parmer, major G. M. (Jarrow)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hallas, E.
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hartshorn, V.
Perkins, William George


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Hayward, Major Evan
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton


Birdied, Major J. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A.
Pratt, John William


Blades, Sir George R.
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Preston, W. R.


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hinds, John
Prescott, Major W. H.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hirst, G. H.
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.
Remnant, Colonel Sir James


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Greece, Major C. E.
Hogge, J. M.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Briant, F.
Holmes, J. L.
Rodger, A. K.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hood, Joseph
Rose, Frank H.


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Roudell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Rowlands, James


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Royce, William Stapleton


Cairns, John
Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Royus, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred
Inskip, T. W. H.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Casey, T. W.
Irving, Dan
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Jephcott, A. R.
Seager, Sir William


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Johnstone, J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Short. A. (Wednesbury)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Sitch, C. H.


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Kellaway, Frederick George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Kelly, T. (St. Stephen's Green)
Sturrock, J. Lang


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Kenwerthy, Lieut.-Commander
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page
Kenyon, Barnet
Suriees, Brig General H. C.


Davies. Alfred (Clitheroe)
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Swan, J. E. C.


Davies, Mired Thomas (Lincoln)
Kiley, James Daniel
Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)


Davison, J. E. (smithwick)
King. Commander Douglas
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Knight, Captain E. A.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Coml. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Dockrell, Sir M.
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Thorne, Colonel W. (Plaistow)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Tootill Robert


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Waddington, R.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lunn, William
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Edwards. J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Lynn, R. J.
Waterson, A. E.


Falcon, Captain M.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Forestier-Walker, L.
M'Laren. Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Forrest, W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Whitla, Sir William


Gange, E. S
McMicking. Major Gilbert
Wignall, James


Ganzonl, Captain F. C.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wild. Sir Ernest Edward


Gardiner, J (Perth)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Glanville. Harold James
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Glyn, Major R.
Martin, A. E.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Mond. Rt Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wood. Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Gould, J. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Grayson. Lieut.-Col. H. M.
Morrison. H. (Salisbury)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Greame, Major P. Lloyd.
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Young, Lt.-Corn. E. H. (Norwich)


Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Newbould, A. E.
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Greig, Col. James William
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)



Griggs. Sir Peter
Nicholl. Com. Sir Edward
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.


Gritten. W. G. Howard
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Spoor and Mr. Tyson Wilson.


Grundy, T. W.






NOES.


Archdale. Edward M.
Dawes. J. A.
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)


Atkey, A. R.
Denison-Pender, John C.
Hildor, Lieut.-Colonel F.


Barker, Major R.
Duncannon, Viscount
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Barnston. Major H.
Elveden, Viscount
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Eyres Monsell, Commander
Hurd, P. A.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.


Bell. Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jesson, C.


Bird, Alfred
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Jodrell. N. P.


Blair, Major Reginald
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)


Brassey. H. L. C.
Gardner. E. (Berks, Windsor)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Gibbs. Colonel George Abraham
Lowe. Sir F. W


Carew. Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Gilbert, James Daniel
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Gilmour. Lieut.-Colonel John
Macmaster. Donald


Cheyne. Sir William Watson
Gray. Major E.
McNeill. Ronald (Canterbury)


Churchill Rt Hon. Winston S.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel John
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Hacking. Captain D. H.
Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh. S.)


Crack. Rt Hon. Sir Henry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir Fred. (Dulwich)
Neal, Arthur


Curzon. Commander Viscount
Hanna, G B.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Dalziel. Sir Davison (Brixton)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray




Pulley, Charles Thornton
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chichester)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Raeburn, Sir William
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Ramsden, G. T.
Tickler, Thomas George
Wolmer, Viscount


Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.
Townley, Maximilian G.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rees, Sir J. D.
Waring, Major Walter
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Weston, Colonel John W.
Younger, Sir George


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson



Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir


Stanton, Charles Butt
Wilson, J. H. (South Shields)
F. Banbury and Major E. Wood.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, after the word "to" ["being appointed to"], to insert the words "or holding." It might possibly be held that a married woman could be appointed to an office and be excluded from holding it, and it would be an absurd position that a married woman could be appointed to an office but if she had married after appointment she could not hold it. I do not want to argue the whole question of marrying in the Civil Service, but this is an Amendment which, I think, might be accepted. It is really a drafting Amendment, so that if a woman is appointed to any office she shall be qualified to hold it.

Sir E. POLLOCK: If this is merely a drafting Amendment, there is no objection whatever to accepting it, but I rather wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman had explained it a little more clearly, because do not quite see how, as the Clause stands, a woman who had been appointed to any office would be disqualified from holding it, and I do not see how it is a matter of mere drafting. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me an illustration of what he means. I imagine he has given a good deal of attention to the matter, and come to the conclusion that the words are necessary to fill the gap. If he would kindly explain it to me, I should be glad to accept it, if it would make the Clause more workable and watertight. I have some feeling that it may be quite unnecessary.

Major HILLS: I am very sorry if I did not make my meaning clear. Unless you have the words "or holding," this very absurd position might arise. A married woman applies to be admitted to some public office and has got to be admitted. Another woman is appointed who is unmarried, but subsequently marries, and she is told that there is no phrase in the Bill which authorises a married woman to hold an appointment. It is purely a technical point, and I am sure there could not be anything so unreasonable that, whereas a married woman was entitled to be appointed, a woman who subsequently marries might not be able to hold the appointment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am not sure I am yet convinced that it would be necessary to insert the Amendment, because I still think she would be held to be exercising a public function. But, as my hon. and gallant Friend seems to think it is necessary, I will accept the Amendment, although I may possibly have to add some words to it on Report. But, subject to that, and with the reservation as to the proviso, I accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Colonel GREIG: I beg to move to leave out the word "or" ["entering or assuming"].
The three Amendments in my name all hang together, and, if agreed to, the Clause would run as follows—
A person shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage—
I am omitting one or two Amendments which have been made—
from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering, assuming or being engaged or employed in any civil profession or vocation or industrial occupation.
I want cleared up a latent ambiguity on the face of this Bill. What is a vocation? The object of the Bill is to enlarge as far as possible women's work in the future, and I assume it is the desire that not only civil professions, but all industrial occupations fitted for a woman shall be open to her. The word "vocation" is perhaps a little ambiguous, and my Amendment makes it clear that industrial occupation is meant as well. If the Bill does contain what my Amendment suggests, well and good. If it does not, then I suggest it ought to. If it does not apply to industry, then it is not extending to a woman her right to share in employment of all kinds. There is nothing in the title of the Bill which says that it shall only apply to any civil profession. It says, "An Act to amend the Law, with respect to disqualifications on account of sex." It must apply to a very large number of women, because before the War there were something like 4,330,000 in industry, and we shall have to provide now for a good many more—certainly 450,000 women
who are partially supporting their husbands, another 150,000 to 200,000 widows, partially supporting their children, 100,000 women who will have no opportunity of marrying owing to the number of men killed, and 1,500,000 women who made up the excess of women over men before the War. In order that all these women shall have the opportunity, if they desire it, of going into industrial pursuits, I want to make it quite clear on the face of the Bill that there is nothing to prevent them. Of course, I shall have the assistance and support of Labour Members opposite, because the whole object of this Bill is to widen the scope of women's employment.

The CHAIRMAN: As there are so many "ors" in the Clause, I propose to take the second Amendment in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's name as being an Amendment of more substance.

Amendment proposed: After the word "assuming" ["entering or assuming any civil profession"], to insert the words "or being engaged or employed in."—[Colonel Greig.]

Sir E. POLLOCK: I waited to learn what this Amendment really means. So far as I know, I cannot think—and I will ask any hon. Member to assist me—of any industrial occupation from which a woman is legally disqualified by her sex, unless it be in certain what is commonly called Factory Legislation, in which a provision is made that a woman shall not be employed in certain extremely arduous and onerous work, and that provision is made in her own interest. I use the term "Factory Legislation" broadly for the purpose of being able to call attention to specific cases, but my impression is that there has been in legislation passed in the latter part of the nineteenth century a certain number of cases in which an absolute bar was made to the employment of women because the employment would be wholly unfit for them. So far as I know, that is the only case of disqualification by law. Otherwise the whole area of industrial occupation is open to women. And I should he very sorry indeed to put in words which I do not understand, and which, so far as I can see, will not serve any useful purpose. But I hope any hon. Member who can point out to me that my view is wrong will do so. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment certainly did not give a single illustration of the necessity of removing a bar
which otherwise existed, and, in the absence of more information, my tendency at the present time is to invite the Committee to say that these words ought not to be inserted, because they are unnecessary, and therefore may be harmful. But if some hon. Member will convince me, on the other side, I am prepared to wait for a final decision until I have learned that there are some cases where a sex bar ought to be removed in order to enable a woman to go into an industrial occupation.

Colonel GREIG: Perhaps I can make myself a little clearer on the point. With regard to the factory legislation, I was quite prepared to move later on in the Bid to insert:
Provided further that nothing in this Act shall alter or remove any restriction on the employment of women imposed by the Factory Acts.
That would quite cover the point raised. By law at the present time women are precluded from going into certain industries under an Act which we passed this Session. Under the Pre-War Practices Act, certain customs in certain trade unions were made rigid law, and by those customs women, on account of their sex, are excluded. That Bill, I believe, extends only for a year. It was suggested that the matter should be settled by agreement with the trade unions, but we are not prepared to accept that. I want to secure under this Bill that women who are precluded by legislation which makes these customs law shall go into those industries in spite of those customs. Perhaps the Solicitor-General may now realise that there are disqualifications on the ground of sex imposed by our law.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend, and I apologise if I seemed stupid beforehand in not appreciating fully what he said. But, as the matter stands, he agrees with me that it would be necessary to put in some qualifying words later on to prevent any repeal of what might be called Factory Legislation.
Therefore he agrees that he does not want to remove the bar by which women are prevented, in their own interest, from engaging in very arduous toil. He is going to safeguard that by another Amendment. What is the purpose then of the present Amendment? So far as I can follow it is that we should repeal the Pre-War Practices Act. I am not prepared
to invite the Committee to repeal an Act passed so recently. That is really not the purpose of the Bill now before us. It would be quite wrong to accept an Amendment really to take away the effect of the Pre-War Practices Act passed a few months ago. Under these circumstances, the matter now being fully explained, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, and I propose to ask the Committee to endorse that view.
Amendment negatived.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the words "or assuming" ["or assuming any civil profession"], to insert the words "or carry on."
This manuscript Amendment is of the same character as the last one. The effect of it would be that a person shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from entering, or working in, or carrying on any civil professional avocation. The point is the same as the last Amendment.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I accept these words subject to the same reservations as before.
Amendment agreed to.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "sex" ["exempted by sex"], to insert the words "or marriage."

Sir E. POLLOCK: I accept these words with the same reservations as before.
Amendment agreed to.
The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Lord ROBERT CECIL and other hon. Members: In Subsection (1), after the word juror ["liability to serve as a juror"], to insert the words "and the wife of a husband qualified to be appointed justice of the peace or to serve as a juror shall herself be qualified to be appointed justice of the peace and to serve as a juror."

The CHAIRMAN: In regard to this Amendment, it does not appear to me to embody the removal of a disqualification on account of sex. It is proposing the enactment of a new qualification, which is a very different thing. The Amendment, therefore, seems to me to be outside the scope of the Bill.

Major HILLS: On a point of Order. The title of the Bill is "An Act to amend the law with respect to disqualifications
on account of sex." The effect of my Amendment would be to allow a woman whose husband was qualified to act as a juror to sit herself as a juror. I submit that at present that that woman is disqualified, and, therefore, that my Amendment is strictly within the title of the Bill. The woman is now disqualified, and we are removing the disqualifications of sex. Are we outside the scope of the Bill in removing a further disqualification from which women now suffer? The juror qualification in its practical effect means a property qualification, and unless this Amendment is carried a very large number of women will not be qualified.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have satisfied myself by looking very carefully into this matter as to the effect of these words. I am afraid the effect would be that where the husbands were disqualified, the wives would be disqualified too. I think in the interest of the Bill, and of bringing in as many ladies as possible to be jurors, these words ought not to be accepted. The effect of them, I am afraid, would be disastrous from the women's point of view.

Major HILLS: Why?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I will explain later to my hon. and gallant Friend.

The CHAIRMAN: I must not deal with the merits of the Amendment, but it seems to me to be quite clear that what this Bill is intended to do is to remove the disqualifications, and not, as I said before, to make new qualifications.

Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert instead thereof the words,
(a)Until Parliament otherwise determine, special provision may be made by Order in Council regulating the admission of women to any branch of the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's overseas possessions or in any foreign country. Provided that the draft of any such Order shall be laid before each House of Parliament for not less than thirty days on which such House is sitting, and if either Hone before the expiration of such thirty days presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof no further action hall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft Order.
In moving this Amendment I desired to express the regret I feel that the Noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), who is associated with the Amendment is not here to move it instead of myself, as this is an Amendment very much after his heart. But he is ill. In a few words may I say that the
object of this Amendment is to omit paragraph (a) and to substitute for it the words of the Amendment, so making the conditions of the Civil Service exactly the same for women as for men—with this one small exception: We purposely exclude from the scope of our Amendment admission to the Civil Services connected with India and the Overseas Dominions. We think that special considerations may apply to these spheres of activity, and it is not for this House to impose new conditions upon the admission of what is, I believe, rather special services. Apart from that small reservation, the object of this Amendment is to break down all the special barriers that differentiate between men and women in respect to admission to the Civil Service.
I listened with some regret to the remarks which have just been made by the Solicitor-General in reply to the Amendment moved earlier by the hon. and gallant Member for Durham. He implied that it is his intention to move a series of Amendments to paragraph (a), which would perpetuate the differentiation between men and women in respect to the conditions of entrance to the Civil Service. I wish to wipe away one and all of these special conditions—conditions on women in respect to the entrance that are not imposed on men. In moving this Amendment I may say I think I have behind me the great body of opinion of professional women in the country. Practically every women's organisation that represents professional women is in favour of these restrictions upon the entry of women into the Civil Service being removed. Apart from the view of organised women's opinion in the country, there is the further consideration that to continue any special restrictions would be altogether anomalous in view of the abject and the Clauses of this Bill. If members of the Committee will look at the first section of the Bill they will find that a woman may become a Member of this House, and—in view of the Amendment which we have just carried—of the other House. She may become a Cabinet Minister. She may sit on a jury. So far as I understand the Bill, she may obtain degrees at any university. By what process of logic or reason, then, when yon allow a woman to become a Cabinet Minister, can you refuse her the right to become a second division clerk? Why if no exceptional treatment is required if she wishes to sit on a jury, or to hold some
high appointment in the State, should you desire to continue to impose restrictions upon he. when she wishes to enter, probably by competitive examination, the minor ranks of smile Government Department?
It was suggested by the Solicitor-General that there were special reasons which made it necessary to impose special restrictions upon women. The questions, for instance, of marriage, childbirth, and so on. I reply that women are just as well qualified to express their opinion upon these subjects as he is. All organisations of women's opinion had all those views in their minds when they declared that they wished the Government to carry out its pledges, and to remove in deed as in word, the special disabilities from which women now suffer in reference to entrance into the Civil Service. It is very necessary that we should not leave this question to Orders in Council, or to any Department to decide. I am quite certain, and every Member of this House knows the attitude of the bureaucrats, that they will set their faces against the free admission of women into Government administration. I say that with some justification. For several years it fell to me to serve upon the Royal Commission that inquired into all the Departments of the Civil Service. In practically every Department one came up against a solid opposition against the entrance of women in any large numbers. If we leave the matter to Orders in Council—which in actual practice means the officials of the Treasury—to decide, what are to be the conditions of the entry of women, I am confident they will hedge those conditions around with every kind of restriction, and make it impossible for women to enter save in exceptional cases. That, to my mind, would be a calamity. Even before the War I was convinced that no restriction was necessary, and that the doors of the Civil Service should be thrown open to women. With the experience of the War I believe that generally is the opinion almost of every hon. Member of this House. The Solicitor-General himself paid a well-deserved tribute to the Department over which he himself so ably presided during the War in this respect, and his experience has been that of all those who have had direct knowledge of the value of women's work. With that experience in mind it does seem to me to be in every way objectionable to continue this differentiation between the two sexes, and leave to
Government Department to [...] what should be the conditions of [...] of women into the Civil Service, because by doing that you make it much more difficult for women to enter the various ranks of the Civil Service than it is or will be for men. This is particularly so at the present moment, when the House and the country are embarking upon new fields of legislation and administration in which the help of women may in many instances be more valuable than the help of men, such as the establishment of a great health service.
During the inquiries of the Standing Committee upon the Health Bill, I was struck over and over again in regard to the question of the administration of health, by the opposition of the bureaucrats to the throwing open of the doors of the Ministry of Health to women. My Amendment does not raise any question of bringing women into the Civil Service and keeping out discharged soldiers, for it merely puts women upon exactly the same footing as men. If the Government wish to encourage the entrance of discharged soldiers into the Civil Service they may do so on its own merits. I am aware that to bring women into the Civil Service may possibly keep some men out, but that is not differentiating against discharged soldiers. I hope I have said enough to show that the time has come to go over the heads of the bureaucrats in Government offices and insist upon the free admission of women into Government offices on the same conditions as men. As far as I can read pledges the Government is pledged to take that action, because in the manifesto of the two leaders of the Coalition, issued upon the eve of the Election, they declare that
it will be the duty of the Government to remove the existing inequalities of tug laws as between men and women.
Here is a case in point. Here is a disability under which women undoubtedly suffer at the present moment. Let the Government keep their pledge and remove this disability. Let them also remember that upon three separate occasions this House has declared its desire that these disabilities should be removed. In the last Session hon. Members of the Labour party opposite introduced a Women's Emancipation Bill, and that measure, in one of its Clauses, removed the disabilities that now differentiate between the two
sexes as far as the Civil Service is concerned. That Bill passed its Second Reading by a big majority, and it went through Committee with the willing approval of hon. Members without any Amendment at all. It came back here, and in the teeth of the opposition of several members of the Government it was carried by a significant majority. I ask this Committee not to allow its decision, three times given a few months ago, to be stultified by action in another place, and not to allow this measure to be made ineffective by the bureaucrats in Whitehall. I hope I have said enough to commend this Amendment, which 1 hope the Committee will carry, and thus take one more step towards the complete emancipation of women.

Sir J. D. REES: With all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has said about the principle of this proposal, and the attitude of this House, I heartily agree. I should, however, like to have some explanation as to the effect of this Amendment before I can support it. Clause 1 Sub-section (a) provides
That His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise regulations to be made prescribing the mode of the admission of women to the Civil Service.
That does not contemplate exclusion, but it contemplates their admission to the Civil Service, and I see nothing to take exception to in that proposal. Then come the words to which my hon. and gallant Friend objects, namely,
Providing for the exclusion of women from admission to any branch of the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's possessions.
Those words are not found in the paragraph which my hon. and gallant Friend would substitute for that in the Bill. Supposing the Committee, in pursuance of the general principle which has been laid down, accepts this paragraph in place of that in the House of Lords Bill. I would like to know what happens as regards the Civil Service of India or Ceylon.

Sir S. HOARE: If the hon. Gentleman looks at my Amendment he will find those possessions are safeguarded, and I especially exclude services like India and Ceylon. The words of my proposal are:
any of His Majesty's overseas possessions.

Sir J. D. REES: This paragraph reads:
Regulating the admission of women to any branch of the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's overseas possessions.
That does not reserve the power to exclude them whereas the paragraph in the Bill does. I should like to be quite clear on this point. It is not my business to suggest the method. I have been in charge of one of these Departments right through the War with 500 women in it, and I am profoundly convinced of the capacity of women to serve in the Civil Service, and I will support their claims to do so. I should, however, like it made clear that there is power to exclude them from appointments in the Indian Civil Service. I do not think this paragraph is perfectly clear that the power is reserved to His Majesty to exclude women from India and Ceylon where we do not yet wish to see them sitting in the seat of justice where men alone have sat for so long and carried on the business of the country.

Major O' NEILL: I rise to support this Amendment, and in doing so I do not intend going over the ground which has already been covered. Why to my mind it is of such importance that this Amendment should be carried, if it is carried it does away with the possibility of bureaucratic interference as regards the conditions under which women should be admitted to the Civil Service. It may be said, as has already been indicated, that the Government Departments do not in fact put any difficulties in the way of women being admitted into the Civil Service on the same basis as men, and possibly it will be of interest to the Committee to give a specific instance where a woman member of the Civil Service is suffering disability by reason of the fact firstly, that she is a woman, and secondly, that she is a married woman.
I raised this question before on the Report stage of the Ministry of Health Bill, which provided that the National Insurance Commissioners for Ireland should be established and placed upon a permanent footing as Civil servants. Previous to that they had merely been appointed from year to year by the Treasury. The National Health Insurance Commissioners for Ireland consists of three men and one woman, a Mrs. Dickie, who is universally acknowledged to be one of the leading women Civil servants in the United Kingdom. She has been in the Civil Service for years, she has risen to the high position of National Health Insurance Commissioner, and she has discharged her work with great ability and satisfaction to the Department by whom she is employed.
When the question of the establishment of the Commissioners arose, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated on the Report stage of the Ministry of Health Bill that he was quite willing to place these appointments upon a permanent footing, but with regard to Mrs. Dickie, that was impossible owing to a Regulation which precluded a married woman from such establishment; but he promised that she should be granted a term of some length. She could not be put on the same basis as the men simply because she was a married woman. Further than that she is also suffering by reason of the fact that the Treasury, although they always pay her the same salary as the other Commissioners, will not give her the same pension as the male members of the Commission. That is a specific instance where a woman is suffering simply because she is a woman and because she is a married woman. The reasons given for this differentiation do not apply in this case because there is no question of child birth or anything of that sort, and, therefore the Treasury cannot fall back upon excuses of that kind for treating the woman in this way and differently from the way the men are treated. I do feel most strongly about this particular case. If we leave this question entirely to Orders in Council, as I understand is proposed by the Government, we shall get cases in which women of this kind, women of the highest character and the highest integrity in the highest offices of the Civil Service, will continue to be placed in positions of inferiority by reason of the fact that they are women, and married women. I do hope that this House on this Amendment will once again repeat the decision at which it has arrived upon the Women's Emancipation Bill, and will by this Vote record its adherence to the principle that in the Civil Service women and men who give equal service and who are equally efficient shall receive as they ought to receive, absolute equality of treatment.

Colonel YATE: I do not wish to say anything about the English Civil Service, but I do wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) has provision must be made in this Bill chat women are not admissible to the Indian Civil Service and the Civil Service in Asiatic countries. The question there is quite different. I, therefore, ask the right
hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to see to it that sufficient precaution is taken in this Bill to provide that the Indian Civil Service and the Civil Service in British Asiatic possessions are not opened to women.

Sir E. POLLOCK: This Amendment raises perhaps the most important question, or at least one of the most important questions, in the Bill, and I am going to ask the Committee to give me their attention while I put before them some facts and materials without which I am quite certain that they would not be able to form a just judgment. I am in full accord with the general spirit of the Amendment as indicated by the speeches that we have heard. I do not want to exclude women from the Departments; I wish to give them ample opportunity. Those hon. Members who were here earlier will have heard from me the testimony that I have offered from my own experience as Controller of the Foreign Trade Department to the excellent work done by women in high positions there. I know that we relied upon them in several Departments, and they undoubtedly earned, and justly earned, tributes from all those with whom they came in touch. You cannot, therefore, deal with this question simply by saying, "All the doors must be open to every woman and there must be no sort of differentiation as between men and women." You cannot in that way really solve the question, and you cannot meet even the qualifications which my hon. Friend himself suggested, namely, that women who do equal service and are equally efficient should have equal opportunity. If that is one of your tests, then there must be some sort of limitation to give effect to it.
I am going to invite the Committee to consider very carefully what are the conditions with which you have to deal, and I do beg them to pay full and earnest attention to the facts that do concern and vitally concern the public service. First of all, let me point out what is the difference between the Bill as it stands and the Amendment that is proposed. In the Bill as it stands power is taken to make an Order in Council, and that Order in Council is to prescribe the mode of admission of women to the Civil Service of His Majesty and the conditions under which women admitted to that service may be appointed to posts therein. That deals with the sort of conditions which at
present apply to men and are binding throughout the Civil Service, such as the examinations conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners. It also provides—this is how the Bill runs—"for the exclusion of women from admission to any branch of the service in any of His Majesty's Possessions"—we mean overseas, and I am prepared to deal with that point—" or in any foreign country." I think it is agreed by all persons that it would be impossible to appoint women on the same terms as men in the Civil Service overseas, more particularly in India, and it may be Ceylon, and we want to safeguard ourselves there. I do not think that there is any real difference between us. The hon. Baronet (Sir R. Hoare) wants to put in a different Amendment. His Amendment is that, until Parliament otherwise determines, special provision may be made by Order in Council regulating the admission of women to any branch of the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's Overseas Possessions, but it specially takes away the power which is contained in the Bill of regulating the admission of women to the Home Civil Service or any of the Departments at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ‡"] My hon. Friends are good enough to say that I am properly explaining their Amendment. I wish to do it every justice.
The difference, therefore, between us is this: In the Bill as it stands the Government take power to regulate conditions, to apply at home as well as overseas, and they also take power. to exclude women overseas, whereas in the Amendment there is no power at all to regulate the admission of women to the Home Civil Service; there is only power to regulate admission to the service overseas. The Government at present is a very large employer of women. I have had the figures taken out, and I want to place them before the Committee. In the Post Office we have 86,500 women employed, as compared with 126,000 men, or about two-thirds of the number of men employed. Taking the other Departments together there are over 85,500 women as against 115,500 men. It is quite true, and I want to make it plain, that those are in the lower ranks, and I want to provide for the admission of women to the highest—the very highest—classes of the Civil Service. It is impossible, however, when already you have that very large number of persons employed, to sweep away all details or conditions of employment, and
at once, by Statute, without regulations, to open a free door through which women and men shall pass. Let me add this, in the interests of the women themselves, if you put woolen without any qualification or condition on the same terms in competition with men, I am not at all sure that you will safeguard their ultimate interest as well as if you apply conditions of employment which give them a fair and equal opportunity. Let us disabuse our minds of the sort of word which has been used more than once in the course of the speeches of the Mover and supporters of the Amendment. I refer to the word "bureaucracy," as though the Civil Service was all concerned in keeping out women. I do not think that is true. I have had an opportunity of consulting with some of those who are in charge of the matter, and I have found that they have taken a strong view, and insisted, as I have done, upon the valuable services which have been rendered by women, and that they are determined to secure that a good opportunity shall be given to them for employment. I therefore ask the Committee to leave aside words like that, which are really words of prejudice. Let me tell the Committee also some of the details, which are not unimportant, regarding the present conditions of employment. At the present time it is fair to say that the whole question of the employment of women is in a fluid state. Everybody knows that the Gladstone Committee reported in April of this year, and the conclusions of the Gladstone Committee, which some women have asked should be carried into effect, really amounted to this:
Other women witnesses, however, felt that it would be a long time before women, if introduced along with men into the lowest grades of Class 1, could become qualified by training and tradition to exercise any real influence over the decisions of Departments. In these circumstances, the witnesses thought that the employment of women in administrative posts should be experimental in the first instance, and that the experiment should take the form of earmarking for them certain posts in higher as well as lower grades and recruiting candidates for them, not by open competition (which, as things are, would not be likely to produce the most suitable candidates) but by a system of special selection.
Those women witnesses took that view. I pass to another passage:
In the consideration of the evidence our views have taken shape, and we present them in the hope that they may be of assistance in the solution of a problem, the full difficulty of which only appears on close examination. It is easy and natural to formulate principles based
on the equality or interchangeability of the sexes, but we are required to base our conclusions on the experience of Departments during the War. The evidence which we have taken on the subject convinces us that having regard to the existing differences in the opportunities of education and in the general mental equipment of young men and women it would be unsafe to introduce women forthwith as interchangeable with men throughout the various Departments, and that a readjustment of this kind needs to be worked out by gradual processes and carefully tested stage by stage.
Just one more passage, and I have done:
We accept the general principle advanced by the Royal Commission that the end in view should Le, not to provide employment for women as such, but to secure for the State the advantages of the Services of women wherever those services will best promote its interests.
Lastly, they say that it would not be possible to treat women
as interchangeable with men until experience has demonstrated only that they c[...]n rill these poets satisfactorily, but that in the same proportion as men they will be competent to carry wit the higher administrative duties for which junior administrative work constitutes the regular and necessary training.
The upshot of that is that the employment of women is undergoing developments and that at the present there is no adequate experience upon which to base the conclusion that it would be safe to open the door, without any conditions at all, to men and women alike, it would be unfair to the women from some points of view. For instance, in the lower divisions boys are examined between the ages of sixteen and seventeen, and it is found, so far as our experience goes, that the boy of sixteen or seventeen is a more powerful competitor and more like to succeed than a girl of sixteen or seventeen. The girl probably matures from the point of view of her capacity for examination at a later age, and at the present moment it is proposed to have two parallel classes in which, instead of putting young women upon an equality with men, we give to the women at the age of eighteen the examination which boys of sixteen or seventeen have to pass, and because they are older to take them on in employment at a slightly higher rate of wages, so that you give the girls a better opportunity of lacing selected than they might have if put upon terms of strict equality with the men. With regard to the higher grade in Civil Service examinations, the young man who passes the examination has the right to choose what Department he will go into. He may choose the Home Office, the Foreign Office, or any other Office. If you are to safeguard the employment of
women in the Civil Service overseas, in India, Ceylon, or elsewhere, you must give some power to regulate, unless you say that they are to have the right to be selected for services in which I believe it would be unwise to employ them. The hon. Member for Leicester (Colonel Yate) and the hon. Member for East Notts (Sir J. D. Rees) have a closer knowledge of Indian affairs than I have, but so far as I know there is hardly any dispute in regard to the employment of women overseas. I think the Amendment of the Noble Lord contains words for their exclusion from services overseas. Under these circumstances you must have some condition.
We then come to what is the difference between the two points of view. The Amend neat provides that in regard to the proceedings by Orders in Council a draft of the Order is to be submitted to this House. I am quite prepared to lay the Orders in Council upon the Table of the House for the purpose of convenience, but I am not prepared to lay the draft. What I want to do is to do exactly what was done in the case of the Orders in Council under the Treaty Act and to lay thorn upon the Table of the House when they have been made, and to provide that if a Motion is made within twenty-one days to abrogate them either wholly or in part, then that part can be annulled. It is only the question of whether you should place the draft on the Table or whether to give the House the opportunity to annual any Clause that may be criticised. The Order in Council which I propose is one which is more commonly used at the present time.

Major O'NEILL: Does that apply to Orders in Council which will be made in respect of the home service as well as Orders in Council made in respect of the foreign service?

Sir E. POLLOCK: Certainly. The Order in Council both as to the foreign service and as to the home service will be laid upon the Table of the House. I hope I have carried the Committee with me. First of all, there must be some latitude to the Government in this matter of employment, whether in the interests of the women and in consequence of the experimental stage at winch the employment of women now rests. There must be some latitude and some conditions
must be imposed, and that applies to the home Civil Service as well as the foreign Civil Service. I want to have the power to differentiate somewhat in favour of women in order to give them a better and more equal opportunity than they have at the present time. Instead of desiring to perpetuate a system of bureaucracy I want to make the position of women one of equality of opportunity, and for that purpose you must give a certain amount of latitude to safeguard the women themselves. Owing to the present system of education, if you left it simply as a matter of open competition the probability would be that the men would succeed by reason of their equipment at an earlier age than the women. With regard to Class 1, I am very anxious to give women every opportunity to reach high positions in the Civil Service. There is very little experience at the present time to show whether you can, in their own interests, allow them to suffer equal competition with the men at the same age, because you would find that a young man and a young woman at the same age the man would generally succeed as against the woman. There is still one point to be dealt with, and that is the question of marriage. It is very easy to say that marriage ought not to be a bar to the employment of women. In order to make it quite clear that this Bill is intended to be as wide as possible I have accepted two Amendments including the word "marriage," so as to provide that women shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage. When we come to consider. the employment of married women we have the experience of the Post Office and other Departments. How could you arrange that they should he employed on the same terms as men, when in the interests of the State it is right and proper that married women should bear children, and certainly in the interests of the children both a certain time before and after child-birth it would be right to provide that the women should be released from duty? That arises very largely in the case of the Post Office, where 80,000 women are employed. Is it possible to lay down rules or to provide by a Clause in an Act of Parliament to revise the law by which we can adjust, I will not say the inequality but the difference in the disability of the sexes? If you simply say that there must be no difference under any circumstances in regard to the employment of men and
women then you are doing a very grave injury to the State and it may be to the married woman herself, and to the coming generation.
I am anxious to show that I can modify the Clause in the Bill very considerably. A certain amount of suspicion has sprung up about this Clause because it 'says, "provide for the exclusion of women from admission." I think that goes a little too far and I can use words which would retain quite sufficient power and yet not be so strong. The Amendment I have drafted would read—
Provided that notwithstanding anything in this Section His Majesty may by Order in Council authorise Regulations to be made providing for and prescribing the mode of the admission of women to the Civil Service of His Majesty.
It was pointed out to me that they might "prescribe" in a manner to exclude. Therefore, in the words I now propose I provide for as well as prescribe the mode of the admission of women to the Civil Service
and the conditions on which women admitted to that service may be appointed to or continue to hold posts therein—
That is in order to safeguard the limitation imposed in the case of marriage—
and giving power to reserve to men any branch of or posts in the Civil Service in any of His Majesty's possessions overseas or in any foreign country.
I put in the word "overseas" to show that the exclusion there is to apply to the Indian or the various other overseas services. That cannot be confused with the Home Civil Service. Finally, I am prepared to submit the whole of these Regulations to the treatment of the House by means of Orders in Council—
Any Order in Council made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled his Majesty in Council may annul the Order or that part thereof and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
7.0 P.M.
May I venture to hope that I have offered a solution of this very difficult problem? I know the strong view that the hon. Member for Durham has always taken, and also the hon. Member for Chelsea, and I should be the first person to agree with them in principle, but when you come to look into the question, and have before
you the material for exercising a judgment it is impossible to be, shall I say, the mere "whole-hoggers" that my hon. Friends are. There are discriminations. that must be made, and with that purpose-I have tried to meet the difficulties, and to give as large a measure as possible to women in order to give them equal opportunity, and at the same time to ensure that that equal opportunity may not be rendered illusory by putting them on precisely the same terms, which, so far as I can judge from the material before me, would place them at some disadvantage. I would ask the Committee to think over this matter very carefully before they decide to cast aside the suggestions which I have made. It is absolutely essential that we should preserve sub-paragraph (a). We cannot accept the hon. Baronet's solution. We have looked into it very carefully, and I trust the Committee will feel that the work that has been done has not been done without good purpose.

Major HILLS: I have listened with very great disappointment to the speech of my right hon. Friend, and I am absolutely certain that it will be received with more than disappointment in the country. I do not think my right hon. Friend knows the passion for equality which is held by women to-day. He seems to me to look at the matter from a very wrong and very mistaken standpoint. The whole of his long and closely-reasoned speech seemed to me to start from wrong assumptions. I do assure bins that women do riot want any sort of protection; they ask for no special privileges. I assure him that that is not their demand. Their demand is for a free field. If it should happen that free competition hurts women, they have said over and over again that they will suffer that hurt, and do not want these special privileges and special examinations and special terms differentiating them from men. Part of the Solicitor-General's speech was occupied in describing how deeply he had the interests of women at heart, and how, in imposing these restrictions—which he admitted were restrictions—he really was acting in the interests of women. As far as his own action is concerned, I entirely accept that, but I would ask the Committee to observe that, in every single case in which the Solicitor-General has nominally acted in the interests of women, he was restricting their entry into the public service. First of all, with regard to Class 1, he said that it was not fair to allow women to compete
on equal terms. I was very glad to hear that; I thought we were getting along. But, in the next sentence, his idea of increasing the fairness of competition is to rule out women from a large part of the posts in Class 1. If we accept the Amendment of the Government, I assure the Committee that it will mean that all the higher paid posts in the Civil Service will continue to be reserved to men. [HON. MEMBERS: "No ‡"] They will; that is absolutely certain, and that is the point we are fighting. That is the point on which we join issue with the Government.. Further, it is now the privilege of men who pass the examinations and win the top places in the list to choose which branch of the service they will go into. I believe the usual choice is the Treasury. Again, there are special Regulations which provide for admission to the Foreign Office. The Solicitor-General was very frank indeed about that. In his anxiety to protect the interests of women he is going to exclude them, I understand, from the right to choose the Treasury and from the right to go into the Foreign Office. It is worth while pointing out that, even in war time, when things were abnormal, a woman was employed by the Foreign Office in a high post in Syria. A woman for seine time acted as Governor of Baghdad in war-time, and I believe it was the intention of my Noble Friend, if he had continued in the high office which be held to appoint that same lady to a high position in the Foreign Office here. How can the Solicitor-General say that women are entirely unfitted for posts in the Foreign Office? If we go through all the exceptions which my right hon. Friend makes, they are all exceptions that operate against women. All of them, I know, are made with the best intentions, but that is the effect.
And now I come to the real crux of the question. My right hon. Friend spoke as though the admission of women to the Civil Service just meant the admission of any women that chose to come along, whether educated or uneducated, fitted or unfitted. The Committee knows that the facts are quite different. I do not think thy right hon. Friend told the Committee quite clearly that there arc now very strict examinations which regulate the admission of men to the Civil Service. All that the women ask is that they shall be able to sit for those examinations on the same terms as men. They do not ask for free
entry in any further sense than that. If my right hon. Friend says that the examinations are not a fair test, I would say, "Alter the examinations." I know of nothing to differentiate between a man and a woman as regards the test of an examination. If by examination you can pick the best men—and our Civil Service proves that you do pick the best men—surely by examination you can pick the best women, and you can allow competition to operate, and allow either the men to beat the women or the women to beat the men‡ Here again I say—and it cannot be repeated too often—that the demand of the women is not for special privileges, not for special favours, hut for the right to try their own power, to feel their own feet. If it happens that in competition with men they cannot hold their own they will be the first to admit that the Civil Service should be abandoned to men. Until they have that chance they do not admit that. All they ask is the chance of proving their merit. The real crux of the question is this: If you sweep away the standard of examination, the standard which we have built up after a good many years of effort and failure, what is my right hon. Friend going to put in its place? Who is going to say what woman is suitable for what post? I defy anybody to do it. It passes the wit of man to say that for this post this woman is suitable and for this post that woman is suitable. You will have decisions of the most wildly contradictory character, and you will have results of the most unfair incidence. What is to be put in the place of the examination? As a matter of fact, it will be the decision of some bureaucrat sitting in Whitehall. All the paraphernalia of this Bill comes down to this, that somebody whose knowledge of his office is probably greater than his knowledge of the world will decide a question which has occupied the thinkers and philosophers of all times, namely, what the special qualities of women are; and he is to write down that certain posts are suitable for certain women.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I really think that my hon. and gallant Friend is misinterpreting me. I have not said that the examination is to be swept away. I have not suggested that at all. What 1 have said is that, in the case of the examinations for the lower grades, the intention was to have an examination for women of eighteen as against young men of sixteen or seventeen. I do not know why my hon.
and gallant Friend assumes that a new system of selection of women is to be set up apart from examination. I never intended to convey that, and so far as I am aware I do not think I said it.

Major HILLS: In the first place, if my right hon. Friend intends that women of eighteen shall compete against young men of seventeen, I do not believe that women want that—in fact I am sure they do not. I am sure they are quite prepared to meet, the men on equal terms at equal ages. If lie does not allow women to sit for examinations on the same terms as men now sit, on what terms are they to be admitted to the Civil Service? Somebody has got to decide; some standard has got to be chosen. Who is to decide, and what is the standard to be? I do ask the Committee to recognise the position the Government are in. We are asked to buy a pig in tile blindest of pokes, and we are asked to give them an absolutely free hand to settle this enormous question, which has swept Western Europe for the last generation. And they are to settle upon their own lines, without reference to this House, except by the extremely inept machinery of Orders in Council, what the women of the country are to do in regard to the public service, and who is to serve and who is not to serve. You must have some simple rule, and the only acceptable rule is equality. As soon as you sweep that away you get into all sorts of difficulties. If we accept the Government Amendment it will mean that the people who are interested in keeping out the women will be the judges as to who comes in and who does not. I make no charges against Government officials, but no man should be judge in his own cause.
My second point is that, unless the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) is accepted, the Government will be universally considered to have broken their election pledges. Let there be no mistake about that. Absolute equality between the sexes does not mean the exclusion of women from our immense public service. You cannot talk of equality and at the same time shut women out who will have passed the examinations that qualify men—you cannot shut them out on the ground of sex and sex alone, and then call that equality. Lastly, unless the Amendment of my hon. Friend is accepted women would rather have no Bill at all, for they regard this as a Bill which would
be a sort of sop to public opinion and would prevent a real enfranchising Bill being passed. I do not believe the Government wish to antagonise the vast body of opinion which their action will antagonise unless the Amendment is carried. I am not speaking of what I do not know. They will bitterly antagonise all the women. They will have struck a cruel blow at their prospects, and especially at the prospects of those who have gone to the expenditure of educating themselves. I hope it is not too late. We all know who are the real authors of this opposition. The same thing occurred on the Health Bill. The House of Commons is flouted, and someone behind the scenes rules what is to be done. I am certain it is not the wish of the House. We shall certainly go to a Division on this, and I hope the Committee will support us.

Sir E. POLLOCK: In answer to the last Observation of my hon. And gallant Friend, as this Bill was adjourned from august, and as he had told me of the misgivings he had about this Clause, I personally insisted that figures should be taken out and that I should have the matter placed in my hands. I said inquiries ought to be made, and I determined that I would have figures and materials on which the Committee could form their judgment. I was impeded by no one. At the end of last week in order to meet views which had been presented by other members of the Government, who indicated that the present Clause went rather too far, I personally drew this Amendment in order that we may get to this new proposal that I have made, and it is quite unfair to say that any person has imposed his will upon me. I have endeavoured sincerely to find a solution of this matter, because I am just as keen as my hon. and gallant Friend that we should find one, and I have every confidence in the ability of him, and I am only sorry my hon. and gallant Friend should say, with all there is in this Bill and all we have put into it and all I intend to accept and put into it, that on some particular point the women would rather have no Bill at all if they do not get their own way in the way my hon. and gallant Friend asks that they should. I cannot believe that the women could be so unreasonable. I rose in order to take away any stigma on anyone who might be supposed to have coerced me. On the contrary, I have endeavoured by these words to place before the Committee what seems to me a
fair and adequate solution of what my hon. and gallant Friend admits is a very difficult problem.

Mr. LYNN: I rise to support the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Hills) referred to the fact that two ladies had taken a prominent part in the government of Baghdad and Syria. I used to think that really women ran the Cabinet, but, having listened to some speeches to-day, I am inclined to think there is no truth in it, because if women were behind the Cabinet and giving it instructions or even advice we should not be wasting our time in this manner. It is discreditable to the House of Parliament that it should spend a whole afternoon in dealing with a Bill of this character, a

Bill which could have been brought in in one Clause and one sentence, simply putting women and men on an equality. It seems absurd at this time of day that we should be splitting hairs with regard to points which the public want settled. I think the general public are in favour of women being treated in the same way as men, as far as public affairs are concerned, and I think this House should realise what the public feeling is, and because I feel that we ought to treat women simply as we treat men I rise to support this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'prescribing,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 101.

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Archdale, Edward M.
Forrest, W.
Moison, Major John Elsdale


Atkey, A. R.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.


Bairu, John Lawrence
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Baldwin, Stanley
Gardiner, J. (Perth)
Morden, Colonel H. Grant


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)


Barker, Major R.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.


Barnston, Major H.
Gros, Colonel George Abraham
Murchison, C. K.


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Gray, Major E.
Nall, Major Joseph


Bell, Lt-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Neal, Arthur


Blair, Major Reginald
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)


Blane, T. A.
Gregory, Holman
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Greig, Colonel James William
Nield, Sir Herbert


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Gretton, Colonel John
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Gwynne, R. S.
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hacking, Captain D. H.
Parker, James


Brassey, H. L. C.
Hanna, G. B.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Breese, Major C. E.
Hanson, Sir Charles
Perring, William George


Bridgeman, William Clive
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Briggs, Harold
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Pratt, John William


Buckley, Lieutenant-Colonel A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Preston, W. R.


Burn, Colonel C. R. (Torquay)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Prescott, Major W. H.


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Purchase, H. G.


Carr. W. T.
Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)
Raeburn, Sir William


Carter. R. A. D. (Manchester)
Howard, Major S. G.
Ramsden, G. T.


Cayzer, Major H. R.
Hume-Wiiliams, Sir Wm. Ellis
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Hurd, P. A.
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Inskip, T. W. H.
Rees, Sir J. D.


Child, Brig.-General Sir Hill
Jackson, Lt,-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)
Reid, D. D.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jesson, C.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Jodrell, N. P.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rodger. A. K.


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Craig, Cal. Sir James (Down, Mid.)
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Henry Page
Kellaway, Frederick George
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Dawes, J. A.
Knights, Captain H.
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Dean, Com. P. T.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Com. H.
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Seager, Sir William


Dockrell, Sir M.
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


Duncannon, Viscount
Lloyd, George Butler
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N`castle-on-T., W.)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Lowe, Sir F. W.
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Elveden, Viscount
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
McNeill. Ronald (Canterbury)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Falcon, Captain M.
Macquisten, F. A.
Stanton, Charles Butt


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Maddocks, Henry
Steel, Major S. Strang.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Fell, Sir Arthur
Martin, A. E.
Stewart, Gershom


FitzRoy, Capt. Hon. Edward A.
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Mitchell, William Lane
Sturrock, J. Long.-


Sutherland, Sir William
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Worsfold, T. Cato


Taylor, J. Dumbarton)
Whitla, Sir William
Tate, Colonel Charles Edward


Tickler, Thomas George
Wigan, Brig.-Gen. John Tyson
Yate, Sir Alfred William


Townley, Maximilian G.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)


Vickers, D.
Lt-Com. C. (Tavistock)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Waddington, R.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.
Younger, Sir George


Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie (Reading)



Waring, Major Waiter
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E.


Weston, Colonel John W.
Winfrey, Sir Richard
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.


Agg-Gardnar, Sir James Tynte
Hall, R.-Adml. Sir W. R. (Lpl, W. Dby)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hallas, E.
Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)


Barrand, A. R.
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Peel Col. Hon. S. (Uxbriage, Mddx.)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hartshorn, V.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bramsden, Sir T.
Hayward, Major Evan
Rae, H. Norman


Briant, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Hinds, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cairns, John
Hodge, Rt. H on. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Casey, T. W.
Hogge, J. M.
Rowlands, James


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Holmes, J. S.
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Clynes, Right hon. John R.
Irving, Dan
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Coitus, Major W. P.
Johnstone, J.
Sitch, C. H.


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne.)


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spoor, B. G.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Keny, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander
swan, J. E. C.


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Thomas. Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Law, A.J. (Rochdale)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Dixon, Captain H.
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Lynn, R. J.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Entwistle, Major C. F.
M'Bride, J. M.
White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)


Ferestier-Walker, L.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wignall, James


Galbraith, Samuel
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Glanville, Harold James
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


Gould, J. C.
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel-
Wood. Major Hon. E. (Ripon)


Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Mosley, Oswald
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Griggs, Sir Peter
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Grundy, T. W.
Newbould, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York.)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Samuel Hoare and Major Hills,

Amendments made: In paragraph (a), after the word "made" ["regulations to be made"], insert the words "providing for and";

After the word "of" ["mode of"], insert the word "the";

After the word "to" ["appointed to"], insert the words "continue to hold";

Leave out the words "providing for the exclusion of women from admission to," and insert instead thereof the words "giving power to reserve to men";

After the word "of" ["branch of"], insert the words "or posts in";

After the word "possessions," insert the word "overseas."—[Sir E. Pollock.]

Major HILLS: I beg to move, to leave out paragraph (b). This paragraph deals with two points. The first provides that any judge or chairman of Quarter Sessions may, at his discretion on an application
made on behalf of the parties, make an order to the effect that, having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given, the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only; and the second part of it allows women to be exempted from service on a jury by reason -of the nature of the evidence to be given or the issues to be tried. I wish to submit to the Committee that this Clause is 'inadvisable. There are certain unpleasant facts in the world, and they have to be faced. Certain cases have to be dealt with in our criminal Courts. They have to be heard by a jury, be that jury composed of men or of women or of men and women jointly. It seems a reasonable power to give the judge to choose whether the jury shall be of men or of women, or whether it shall be a mixed jury, but when you come to look into the matter I cannot conceive any case—and there are many lawyers of experience in the House who will correct me if I am wrong—I cannot conceive of any case in which a judge
would choose a jury of women alone. I can imagine cases where he would choose a jury of men alone. They are cases for, instance, of unnatural offences, but this Sub-section really means that the judge shall have power to decide on trying certain cases by men alone. I know it seems a horrible suggestion, to make to the House that women, and particularly young women, twenty-one or twenty-two years of age, should be brought into contact with the disgusting evidence which is often involved in these cases. But I do ask the Committee to consider this. These things have to be investigated by our Courts of law. Women ask to share the duties of citizenship on equal terms with men. Jury service is an obligation which they do not ask to escape. As the world now stands it is their duty to take their share in whatever unpleasant work has to be done. They must, therefore, serve on these juries. Look at it from another point of view. It is a horrible thing to ask them to do it. It is a shocking idea that women should be asked to share these unpleasant duties. Bet these things do exist. They are equally horrible to men. Somebody has to hear them. Men do hear them now, and i do not understand that they are in the least damaged by so doing. That is not the argument which has been put forward. It may be said that women should be kept more apart, that they should be kept from contact with rough and brutal phases of life. But bear in mind the general trend of things in these days. Bear in mind the insistent demand at women for equality with men—equality of opportunity, equality of sacrifice, equality of duty. That demand is sweeping over the whole of the world. I think a Clause of this sort, although it appears reasonably in consonance with public feeling, is not advisable. I think we should leave men and women to take their share in all these duties.

Sir E. FUME-WILLIAMS: I have listened with consternation to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend. Anyone who has experience of some of the terrible cases that have to be tried in our Courts, and the almost revolting evidence that, unfortunately, has to be given—evidence which is almost unfit for any jury to hear—will agree with me that it is impossible that such cases should be tried before a jury composed of women, or partly of men and partly of women. If my hon. and
learned Friend desires to leave out Subsection (a), and leave it that a person shall not be exempted by sex from serving on any jury, the result will be that when juries are summoned in the future the summoning officer will summon all people who hold jury qualifications, whether men or women, and some one will have to determine, when they conic to Court, in what proportion they are going to sit on the jury. The jury might be composed entirely of men or entirely of women, or of one man and eleven women or eleven men and one woman. There appears to be nothing governing that point in any way. We do not know how juries will be composed in the future, and in what proportion of sexes. I cannot imagine anything more awful for a judge, counsel, or witnesses who may be concerned in such a case than to have to deal with a jury wholly of women or partly of men and partly of women, in view of the evidence which has sometimes, of necessity, to be given. Indeed, I think it would affect in very many cases the administration of justice. Witnesses would be tempted to disguise the truth, and women on the jury would, in my opinion, be so shocked by the evidence that they would find it almost impossible to act in the case.
Imagine the feeling of the judge who had to sum up the evidence and to hold the scales equally before a bi-sexual jury such as I am referring to. I would be inclined to strengthen the powers which this Bill gives. As the Clause stands at present it appears to contemplate that the only fact which the judge can take into consideration, when he is ordering that a case be tried solely by a jury of men, is the propriety of the evidence to be offered. But I would give the judge further powers when he orders a case to be tried by a jury. It is not only criminal cases that we are dealing with. There are ordinary commercial disputes which have to be tried in commercial Courts before juries, involving questions of commercial customs, breach of contracts, interpretation of agreements, and things entirely in the cognisance and experience of the particular classes of men from whom special juries are usually drawn. I say that in these cases women ought not to serve because they lack commercial experience and, with all their assiduity and all their desire to do justice, they may not possess the required knowledge because they have not the experience. These are cases which the parties would desire to have
tried by a jury of men, and we give a judge the power, when application is made for a trial by jury, to say in a particular instance that it shall be tried only by a jury of men.
Take, again, the Divorce Court. I really regard with apprehension the trial of divorce cases before a jury composed of women. There is a great number of women who think—and I am not sure that I do not sympathise with them—that the present divorce laws are unjust, that they do not deal out equal justice to men and women, because to enable a wife to divorce her husband she has to prove more than her husband has to prove, in order to divorce his wife. There is a great number of women who feel that to be a great injustice, and it is quite possible if a woman were on a jury in a Divorce Court she might allow her judgment in dealing with another woman to be warped by what she thinks is the injustice of the existing law. She may think that the tribunal is not dealing even justice between men and women and she may be quite capable of saying to herself, "I cannot exercise an entirely fair judgment on the conditions affecting this particular woman whom I am asked to judge because I think that she is one of a class which is treated unjustly in this case." She is prone to make inferences of this kind, and I do not believe that there is anyone who has had any experience of the Divorce Court in particular who would contemplate without anxiety trying a case before a mixed jury of men and women, and, therefore, when the time comes, I propose to move the Amendment in my name which seeks to go further than tee existing Clause. Meantime 1 hope that the hon. and learned Member whose interest in this question of the privileges of women we all know and sympathise with so deeply, will not press an Amendment of this kind, which I am perfectly certain will shock the sense of the Committee, as I believe it will outrage the sense of the community.

Major E. WOOD: I cannot find myself subscribing to all the arguments which my hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Hume-Williams) has used, but I may say at once that I am entirely with him in his conclusion. I do not think that there is any member in this Committee who speaks with greater authority or commands greater respect in these matters than my hon. and gallant Fried (Major Hills) who moved this Amendment, and
I myself have on various occasions supported him, almost without exception; but I am unable to take that course now, for tins reason. He advanced what was a very good logical argument in favour of the Amendment. My answer is that these things are not entirely decided by logic. In our wisdom, and in the wisdom of those who went before us, which I am still sufficiently old-fashioned to attach some importance to, certain conventions have been established by which on the whole it was thought well to mark a distinction, in the sense of protection of women, between the sexes. I know that there may be many Members of this House who think that that philosophy is out of date and of no use in the twentieth century. I am not one of those, because I think that you cannot, without risk of injury, too abruptly sweep away all the barriers by which society has been fenced, and while, if I followed my hon. Friend's argument, I might be disposed to think that the day may come when for a great many purposes we may find ourselves employing the agency of women entirely both as jurors and perhaps as judges, yet I continue to believe that there are, and must be, many cases—my hon. and earned Friend has stated some—in which, at all events at this moment, it is not desirable to employ men and women together at the same time that is, to my mind, a convincing argument why I cannot support the Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend pleaded on the ground that there was to be complete sex equality. Do not let us be missed by words. I do not think that it would be in any sense true sex equality to compel women as we as amen to hear the class of cases to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. It is a hardship upon any man to compel him to sit through the sort of details that must make up those cases. But if it is a hardship on a man, it is a tenfold hardship on a woman, and I confess that I am at at one with my hon. and learned Friend when he says, as far as he has been able to gauge it, that if we were able to pass this Amendment we should be going beyond the sense of the Committee and running the risk of outraging the common sense, not only of the Committee, but of the whole country.

Captain ELLIOT: In the present state of opinion and convention it may not he practicable to have women juries to try certain cases, because of the conven-
tions which have grown up by which you may not mention certain things in the presence of a woman; but I would ask this Committee to consider that it is part of the Victorian attitude that apparently while you may not say things to women you may do things to women. For instance, the things nurses have to stand, the things nurses have to do, are far worse than listening to words to which they may not listen under the conventions of sham chivalry which have grown up. Take the case of the women who arc the shame of our streets. Think, if you walk home to-night through Piccadilly or the West End of London, of the things we see, and think—it is a matter of common knowledge—of the 50,000 prostitutes of London, and yet we talk about women being offended if they are forced to hear a certain number of the facts of the world. It may be that it is for the moment impracticable as a general thing, but I wish to remind this Committee that the actual facts of life are far worse and far more terribly hard on women than any of the things which we can ask them to listen to. The attitude all along has been: "Do not mention these things, but surround women, or certain women, with a rosy mist of words, and then you can do what you like to other women." That is not the attitude with which we must go through the coming century, and while the present conventions may forbid us to bring certain evidence before mixed juries, it is a sham, and it is not a protection to women. When you have swept away the shame of the streets, and when, if ever, we forbid women in hospitals to perform the revolting duties which they have to do, then we can come with clean hands and say, "We do not want you to listen to certain rather unpleasant phrases"; but until we do that, and not until then, we shall not have the right to say, "We wish to protect women." Let us remember that hundreds of thousands of women are suffering in their bodies things which we think we are doing something to remove by protecting their ears.

Major GREAME: My hon. Friend (Major Wood) put his point in a very charming and chivalrous way, but not, I think, in a truthful way. When one looks at the precise words of the Sub-section which it is now proposed to leave out, it will be seen that they are much wider. I quite understand that if my hon. Friend were taking the case of a woman who
asked to be exempted from serving on a jury for obvious reasons there is great force in his argument. But this Sub-section goes a great deal further than that, and so does the Amendment. I should be prepared to support a compromise limited to the case of exempting the woman who wishes not to serve on the jury. But in order to do that we have got to get rid of the very wide words which stand here which give a judge the power to say that women are not to serve. That seems to be going far beyond the necessities of the case and far beyond any qualities of chivalry such as my hon. Friend suggests, and I think he would agree with me, if I suggest that a woman shall have the option of not serving on a jury in such cases as those in which she does not wish to serve, that we shall be doing quite as much as is demanded in the interests of the protection of women. There are these cases which have got to be tried. After all, women are taking up their position in the State largely as a position of equal citizenship to-day. They have accepted that position during the War, and the extension of the franchise itself is very largely the recognition of the position that women have rights as citizens. I know that women are prepared in consideration of that recognition to face the obligations which it entails. My hon. Friend has pointed out other obligations. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept the compromise and allow the Sub-section to be deleted and then allow this Clause to be put in in a much more moderate form so as to allow a woman herself not to serve on a jury if she so wishes. If the Solicitor-General would accept the deletion of the Clause and between now and the Report stage put in limiting words of that kind he would, I believe, be meeting the wishes of the Committee.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. HOHLER: I am rather surprised that the deletion of this Clause is asked for. Speaking from an experience of the criminal Courts extending over twenty years, in my recollection it has always been the practice of judges to ask women whether they wish to retire or not when this class of case is being tried, and T recollect no case where the women stayed. That is testimony as to what women think. Hon. Members claim to speak on behalf of women. I am satisfied that men are revolted by these cases, and as women in one's own experience have always with-
drawn on the invitation of the judge, although they have had the opportunity of staying, I hope the Solicitor-General will adhere to the Sub-section as drawn.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am indebted to hon. Members for giving me their views about this particular proposal, because it is one about which I feel there is considerable difficulty. The history of it is that when the Bill was introduced in another place there was a Clause which enabled a woman to make application, when she had been summoned for service on a jury, in respect of the nature of the case, and that is the portion of the Clause which the hon. Member wishes to be adhered to. It is a portion of the Clause which I certainly think ought to be adhered to. It seems to me terrible that you should make it impossible for any woman to make an application, after she is summoned, that she should be discharged from hearing the class of cases in which the evidence would disgust any honest mind. If you keep that portion of the Clause, as I think most men would wish to do and most women too, what about the rest of it? The reason why the Clause was amplified was this: It was done on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice of England, who wanted to have power in the judge, at his discretion, to direct whether the case should be tried before a jury of women or a jury of men. If I read the Clause aright, it does not say that they shall be mixed; it does not give power to the judge to order a mixed trial. In the ordinary course they would be mixed. It gives power to direct in a particular case that it should be tried before a jury of men or before a jury of women. I am very reluctant to give even the impression that in any way we are cutting down the duty imposed upon women. After all, anyone who has any experience of the summoning or duties of juries knows that the duties of the jury are wholly burdensome. I cannot think of a more miserable type of public service, because it involves so little trying of cases and so much hanging about. Jurymen may be interested to hear my hon. and learned Friend in some bright and sparkling case, but the number of hours during which they will hear his eloquence is about 1 per cent. of the number of hours they will wait up and down the Courts, wondering whether they will, be wanted to-day, to-morrow or next week. The whole service of juries is one which men have found very heavy indeed.
Coming back to the Clause, and in view of the fact that the Clause was inserted at the request of the Lord Chief Justice of England, who must have considered the matter very carefully, I am very reluctant to let it go. I think that, on the whole, the Committee would be well advised to leave it. I am perfectly ready to consider any further Amendment. There is one part of it that I do not like myself, and it is that part which says that parties may apply. I think that rather dangerous. I think, however, it is better to leave the Clause in unless now or upon Report there are other Amendments to be brought forward. One cannot lightly throw aside the experience and discretion of the Lord Chief Justice. There is one difficulty in working the Clause. Having regard to the power of saying that cases shall be tried before men only or before women only, I think it will be necessary for summoning officers to summon a much larger number of jurors than would otherwise be necessary so that provision may be made for any eventuality that may arise as a result of the exercise of the discretion. The practice must be novel. I think it may be necessary here or in another place to give power to make rules of Court or to make some alteration by another Bill. Here we are dealing not with a Jurors Bill but with a Sex Disqualification Bill.

Major HILLS: In view of the Solicitor-General's statement, and the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with this question, which is one of extreme difficulty upon which opinion is bound to be acute, I should like to be allowed to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir W. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in paragraph (b)to leave out the words
having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given ('make an Order that having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given the jury shall be composed').
I want the Clause to convey clearly that the judge may make this order at the time he orders a case to be tried by a jury. In answer to the learned Solicitor-General, let me point out that the summoning of a large number of people who will not be required for jury duties need not be contemplated, except in criminal cases, because the procedure at present is that either party has to apply to a judge in
Chambers for a case to be tried by a jury, and without such an order from the judge the case is not tried by a jury. What I want to secure is, that the person who has to say whether or not a case is to be tried by jury is the judge who makes that order, and that he shall be allowed to make it at the time that the jury is applied for. Then I would like evidence to place before a judge showing clearly that it was in the interests of the parties and of justice that the case be tried either by a jury of men or a jury of women. Take a case where the sole dispute is as to tile price of clothes or the fit of a dress. County Court judges pass, agreeably enough, a considerable part of their time in determining, on view and on evidence, whether a dress fits or does not fit. Under the direction of a County Court judge the County Court jury have to determine this vexed question. I should think a jury of women would determine it in about half the time and would know a great deal more about the matter than anyone else in Court. On the other hand, there might be a case of a purely commercial dispute involving the commercial customs of London, the interpretation of charter parties, and all sorts of technical terms which the ordinary woman cannot understand. It would be equally appropriate then that the judge, in ordering a trial by jury, should indicate that it should be tried by a jury of men. The only object I have in wishing to delete these words is to make it quite plain that the discretion of the judge shall not be confined to cases where the evidence is of an improper character.

Major HILLS: Might I point out that the words which the hon. and learned Member wishes to leave out are not confined to improper cases? They would apply to a badly-fitting dress as well as to anything else.

Sir W. HUME-WILLIAMS: I agree, and I should be satisfied if the Solicitor-General would tell me that these words are not intended to be confined to cases of improper evidence. Then the whole of my Amendments would become abortive. The words "having regard to the nature of the case and the evidence to be given" did seem to suggest that the intention was to confine the discretion of the judge to cases where women on the jury would be shocked by the nature of the evidence.

Sir E. POLLOCK: The Clause as drawn says any judge before whom the case is heard. My impression is that that would prevent an order being made by anybody except the judge who was actually to try the case. The practice in Chambers is rather different. If the Committee thought it was wise to leave out these words, I would undertake on Report to put in words "before the case is heard or to be heard," in order to make the point clear.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I quite rely on anything the Solicitor-General tells me. If this power is to be exercised at all, it should be exercised by the judge at the time he orders the jury. That is obviously the time to make the order.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I will on Report put in a word or two to give power to make the order before the case is heard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I beg to move to leave out the word "that" ["that case"], and to insert instead thereof the word "any."
As the line stands at present that case would refer back to some case in which an order had been made.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: At end insert the words
any Order in Council made under this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after the Order is laid before it praying that the Order or any part thereof may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or that part thereof, and it shall henceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."—[Sir E. Pollock.]
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 (Short Title and Repeal) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the first of the new Clauses (Amendment of Representation of the People Act, 1918), that is outside the scope and title of the Bill. I think it is drawn under a misconception. The franchise is, according to our existing law, a qualification. The only disqualifications under the Representation of the People Act apply to criminals, lunatics, etc. From the very wording of this proposed Clause, I think it is obvious
that the purpose it aims at must be obtained by specific Amendments to the Representation of the People Act.

Sir S. HOARE: I have no desire to dispute your ruling, but do I understand that the lack of a vote being a disqualification does not, in your opinion, come within the title of a Bill to amend the law and remove sex disqualification? I suggest that it is a disqualification that a young woman may not have a vote, and on that account I submit that the proposed new Clause comes within the scope of the Bill and is in order.

The CHAIRMAN: That is the particular point which I had to consider, and in view of the large interest taken in the matter I thought it right to put my views before Mr. Speaker, and he was clearly of the same opinion, that our franchise laws are based on qualifications, and the only disqualifications are those referred to as legal incapacity.

Major HILLS: With all respect to your ruling, men are qualified at twenty-one and women are not qualified until they are thirty. Surely a Clause that would remove that disqualification, which exists only by reason of sex, comes within the title and scope of this Bill, which deals with the removal of sex disqualification‡ Further, an Amendment which we passed earlier to-day entrenched on this particular question, because we have added Members to the Upper Chamber.

The CHAIRMAN: With regard to that, what the House did was to remove any common law barrier there may be, but that is quite a different question from this. With regard to the other point, a soldier is given the franchise at nineteen, but that is not a disqualification to a civilian who does not get the franchise until lie is twenty-one. The very essence of our action in 1913 was that we proceeded specifically by way of qualification.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to Women who have Qualified for Degrees at Universities Not Admitting Women to Degrees.)

A woman shall be entitled to be admitted and enrolled as a solicitor after serving under articles for three years only if either she has taken such a university degree as would have so entitled her had she been a man, or if she has been admitted to and passed the final examination and kept under the conditions required of women by the university the period of residence necessary for a man to obtain a degree at any university which did not at the time the examination was passed admit women to degrees.—[Major Hills.]

Major HILLS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The object of the Clause is to allow women the privilege of qualifying as solicitors in three years instead oh five if they have fulfilled the conditions and passed the examination which would have qualified them for degrees if they had been men. The Clause is taken from a Clause in the Representation of the People Act, by which a vote was given to women who had qualified for degrees, but owing to the constitution of the university could not get the degrees, since some universities do not grant degrees to women.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I think this is a reasonable Clause. In view of the admission now of women to the rolls of solicitors, I think that if a woman has got a university degree, or what is equivalent to a university degree, she ought not to lose the advantage which is given to a man in those circumstances, namely, that instead of having a five years' period during which she has got to serve articles, she should only have three. It seems to me to bring the matter as between men and women into line. I have looked at the words carefully. I think they are the same as are used in either Section 4 or Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, and as they have already stood now and, so far as I can find, no objection has been taken to them, I think the Committee will be well advised to accept this Clause.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I entirely, if I may say so, agree with the -position taken by the Solicitor-General, but might I ask him if there is any similar disqualification of women in getting called to the Bar, because as I understand this Bill, under it women will be able to be called to the Bar? If men are not given any advantage in the way of examinations for the Bar through having taken a degree at a university, there is no need to say anything about the women, but if they do get some advantage from getting a degree and get their call facilitated thereby, I think similar provision ought to be made for women getting called to the Bar under those circumstances.

Mr. H. SMITH: As I understand the rule as regards the calling to the Bar of persons who have attained a reasonable standard of education, no examination is remitted except what is called the preliminary examination, in which the
examinees have to satisfy the examiners that they have reached a reasonable standard of education both in history and Latin, and no particular or special qualification is necessary, and I cannot believe the benchers of any of the Inns would fail to make that apply both to women and to men. It seems incredible that that restriction would be made, and therefore I should imagine, with deference to the views of the learned Solicitor-General, that it is quite unnecessary for us to make any particular arrangement in this Bill.

Sir E. POLLOCK: To answer the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), I think the difference is this Students who come to the Bar, if they come from a university, are excused from one of their preliminary examinations as the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. Smith) has said, and the number of terms they are required to attend is reduced from twelve to nine. But that is done by regulation of the Inns of Court, and my impression is that that is not the subject of Statute at all. On the other hand, I think I am right in saying that the period of time for articles to be served by a student seeking admission as a solicitor is the subject of Statute. Under these circumstances, I think this provision is necessary, but I think we may say also that if this Clause is accepted by the Committee it would be a clear indication of the course which ought to be followed, and which I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Warrington would be followed by the benchers of the Inns.

Sir J. BUTCHER: If women are going to he called to the Bar I think there ought to be no regulations which would make it more difficult for them than for a man. Is there anything in this Bill which would ensure that it would not be made more difficult? If not, I think the provision ought to be made. Now that we are going to welcome women to the Bar I do not think any benchers ought to be allowed to impose regulations or restrictions upon them which are not imposed upon men, and I would ask the Solicitor-General whether it would not be right to put something in the Bill to that effect?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Would I be in order in asking the Solicitor-General whether, in view of the obligation imposed upon women to serve as jurors, they
would be exempt from jury service on attaining the age of sixty-five, the same as men are?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I do not think that arises at this point.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a. second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Incorporated Societies.)

In case it shall appear that any incorporated society (whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise) being in receipt of any assistance by way of subsidy from public funds or of free accommodation in a public building or other assistance from Government disregards the provisions of Section one hereof, His Majesty's Government may at its discretion suspend or withhold the said assistance from such society until such time as it is satisfied that such society is complying with the provisions of the said Section by admitting duly qualified women to its membership or fellowship.—[Sir M. Conway.]
Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir M. CONWAY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I move it in the main in order to get from the Solicitor-General an explanation as to how far the words in the first Clause cover the points which I want covered. The first Clause says that persons shall not be disqualified by sex for admission to any incorporated society whether incorporated by Royal Charter or otherwise. A great many of the Royal societies consist of many reactionary old gentlemen, and I know of certain Royal societies which object very greatly to the possibility of the admission of women to their bodies. In every one of those cases admission is by election of the whole body of the society, and it follows that any small clique of fellows of a particular society can quite easily exclude all women from election by simply blackballing them, and as far as I can see there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. The Royal Geographical Society for a long time refused to admit women to its body, although it now admits them, but there are a, great many Royal societies that exclude women and have declined to alter their rules so as to admit women. The intention of this Bill, as expressed in the first Clause, is that such Royal societies should admit women, but if you get a society that systematically blackballs suitable women when they are duly proposed, how are you going to control them? The purpose of the Clause which I now have the honour to move is to meet that difficulty.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I confess I am in sympathy with the object of this Clause. I quite appreciate what the hon. Member desires, and I tried my hand to see whether I could do something to meet the point, and failed. The real trouble is this. What is "disregarding"? Is it failing to elect one woman every half-year or every year? Various views may be taken as to the meaning of that. Then it is clear that this "disregard" might be displayed over a period of time. You could not say that because they had not elected a woman at a particular election, therefore they were wilfully disregarding the Act; and once you say it is -a question of discretion, then you give rise to differences of opinion, and you have no strong ground on which you can take action. The further question arises as to the meaning of "until such time as it is satisfied that such society is complying with." What would satisfy the Government that a society is complying? Would the election of one, two, or three women? The members of these learned societies are elected because they are thoroughly qualified, and add distinction to the society; and is it possible to eliminate a wide field of discretion, and to try and lay down any hard-and-fast rule in a Section in an Act of Parliament?
The Bill is for the purpose of removing disqualification, and we have removed disqualification. It is not a Bill in which one can give a standard which all these societies ought to follow, but I think that one might say, and the Committee would be wise to record, that in the sense of this Committee they have not withdrawn this disqualification, and made it possible for women to be elected on these societies, without a clear intention, and a hope, that that should be done. I think my hon. Friend has rendered strict public service by bringing this matter forward, because I think that this Committee would wish to say that they expect some sort of careful consideration given to, and, if possible, compliance with the suggestion which is clearly made in the Bill, that women should now have the opportunity of becoming members of these learned societies. If no women are elected, if they are met by resistance and by a wilful noncompliance, then I feel sure, in the temper which the House of Commons has shown of late, they will be perfectly prepared to take appropriate action, if necessary, in a Bill for that purpose. But I think that when a society reads what has been
the general temper of this Debate, the probability is that the object which the hon. Member has in moving this Clause will be secured—and will be secured in the best way—of giving women a fair opportunity to be candidates, and of being selected impartially if their merits qualify them.
Question put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of Universities to Admit Women to Membership.)

Nothing in the Statutes or Charter of any university shall be deemed to preclude the authorities of such university from making such provision as they shall think fit for toe admission of women to membership thereof, or to ally degree, right or privilege therein or in connection therewith.—[Major Hills.]
Brought up and read the first time.

Major HILLS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
Apparently some doubt exists whether universities have the power under their Statutes or Charters to admit women to degrees, and my Clause is designed to remove that doubt.

Sir J. BUTCHER: As explained by my hon. and gallant Friend, this Clause seems quite reasonable, but I confess I think it is unfortunate that it is not on the Paper, because I do not know that the university authorities have been consulted, and it may be that the precise form of the Clause is of some importance in order to carry out the wishes of the House, as far as possible, and also of the universities. I much regret that no Members of the universities are in the Committee, because they did not know this Clause was going to be brought forward. If, therefore, the learned Solicitor-General is going to accept the Clause now, I venture to suggest that it should be on the understanding that when it comes up on Report, and the attention of Members for the universities and the university authorities has been drawn to it, any alterations should be made if necessary.

Sir E. POLLOCK: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Butcher) because he has put a very proper limitation on what we are proposing to do. But I should like to advise the Committee to accept this Clause. It seems to me to be carefully drawn and I would point out what I think it does and what I think it does not do. Of course, I have not had the opportunity of consulting all those
persons who no doubt would have liked to have been consulted. As I understand, this Clause merely takes away from a Statute or a Charter a bar. We are not giving any directions to any university that they shall make provisions. All that we are doing is to make it possible, if they in their discretion think fit, to admit women to membership and so on, notwithstanding anything in their Statutes or Charters. What their discretion might be it would be impertinent on my part to suggest, and I am sure the Committee would not wish to invade territory which clearly belongs to them, and only desires to remove a disqualification.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a second time.
Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Sir J. BUTCHER: Might I ask this question? Is it intended that the same provision with regard to universities should apply to university colleges? As we know, they have their own Statutes by which they are bound. It may or may not be that they have power to alter those Statutes so as to admit women on the terms on which they would like to admit them. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would kindly consider between now and Report whether the same provisions which we are now making by this Clause with regard to the universities should not be extended to the colleges?

Sir E. POLLOCK: I have gone as far as I can. This legislation by, I was going to say postcard, does not seem to be quite to the point. College authorities as well as university authorities may-or may not have the abilities or disabilities suggested, but I am not prepared to say at present other than that this Clause be added to the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Schedule (Enactments Repealed) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I, at this stage; make an appeal, or perhaps put a question, to the Solicitor-General arising out of the Debate and Division to-day on the Amendment passed
allowing a peeress, in her own right, to take her seat in another place without any legal disabilities? Will the Solicitor-General say, in view of the possibility of hon. Members desiring to raise the question on Report or Third Reading, as to whether a peeress in her own right has now, not only the privilege of sitting in another place and of voting and speaking, but also of standing for membership of this House, and, if elected, taking her seat here?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that on the Question that the Bill be Reported, as amended, to the House we can hardly again go into the whole question.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

Orders of the Day — SUPERANNUATION (PRISON OFFICERS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move. "That the Bill be now read a second time."
May I point out that this is a one-Clause Bill, which I will explain in a few words, and I trust it will commend itself to the judgment of the House. The Bill deals with a single class—officers employed in the prisons of the United Kingdom and the criminal lunatic asylums. It may be within the recollection of the House that during the Secretary-ship of Lord Cave at the Home Office a Committee was appointed to investigate the position of these officers, especially in regard to this one point whether or not the nature of their work was such that they were entitled to special consideration in regard to all matters concerning superannuation. The Committee met and carried out their functions with great care. They decided that a case had been made out, and that some special treatment was due to this class of workers on the ground that—as Members may well understand--the arduous duties in prisons and criminal lunatic asylums tended to cause more wear and tear to those responsible for carrying out the work than almost any other work in the Civil Service.
The unanimous Report of the Committee was that whereas normal retirement in the Civil Service is optional at sixty and compulsory at sixty-five, for these offices optional retirement should be at fifty-five and normal retirement at sixty. They also proposed a method by which some consideration might be given to them for the work they had done which would put them in a rather better position with regard to superannuation than they had enjoyed before, without disturbing the Acts as they exist at present and the method in which those Acts applied to ordinary Civil servants. It was proposed—and this is the scheme embodied in the Bill—that after twenty years' service each year's service shall count as two. I may mention at this point that the age at which the warders are recruited for this service is rather later than that which they are recruited for any other service. It is considered that until a man is twenty-four he is really not fitted to take charge of prisoners. As a matter of fact the average age at which they enter the prison service to-day is about twenty-eight years. If the Bill is carried, as I hope and believe it will ho in its present form, the result of it is that at the end of thirty years' service a man will work op to the maximum to which is entitled under the Superannuation Acts, having regard to the benefit he gets specially by this Act, and after thirty-three years' service he will be able to claim full benefits, if this is extended, and special allowances if he happens to come under the 1909 Superannuation Act, and not the Act of 1859. I have caused to he issued a brief White Paper explaining the features of the Bill. In that Paper hon. Members will have seen that the position in which a member of this service finds himself at the end of twenty-five years' service is a considerably better position than he enjoys to-day.
I was unable to get any actuarial calculation of the cost to the Exchequer of these changes which we propose, but the benefits are estimated, very roughly, to increase the advantages of this position by something like 30 per cent. This is not the cost at first, but only after the process of years. As men come in under this Act it will cost on an estimated maximum something like £25,000 or £30,000 per year. The numbers affected under this Bill are something like 3,000 men and 600 women. Hon, Members may notice that we are proposing to make the date of the effective Action of this Bill retrospective from the
18th of September, 1918. The reason for that is that it was about that time that Lord Cave saw the representatives of the interests affected, and he gave an undertaking that favourable consideration should be given to their claims. The Committee was set up in the late autumn of last year and reported without delay, and it is owing to the amount of legislation which has had to be introduced during the past Session that I have been unable to place this small Bill before the House until now. I trust that explanation will be satisfactory, and that hon. Members will be willing to affirm this proposal for the benefit of a very deserving branch of the service in this country. If it is the pleasure of the House that a Second Reading should be given to this Bill to-night, I shall then move that it be committed to a Committee of the Whole House for further examination.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—[Mr. Baldwin.]

Orders of the Day — CONSTABULARY ANT) POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
I do so with confidence, because I believe that this House will welcome the opportunity, too long delayed through no fault of the Trish Government, of showing its appreciation in a practical form of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Whose fault is it‡

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think it is mostly the fault of the hon. Member who has interrupted me.

Mr. MacVEAGH: That is a most offensive and a wholly gratuitous insult.

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member had a blocking Motion on the Paper for some time.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Oh a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall): There is no point of Order at all in that, and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. MacVEAGH: When a statement is made which I resent as untrue, am I not entitled to repudiate it immediately?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his statement without being interrupted.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Gentleman opposite asked me for an explanation of the delay, and I gave the only one I know. One method well known to the House is that of blocking any Bill before the House. The hon. Member opposite put down a blocking Motion, and it was on the Paper a long time before the Recess in the hon. Member's name. As I was saying, no police force in the world has had to encounter to the same extent revolution and disorder, and no force has shown greater loyalty, grit, and bravery. Their loyalty to duty has been performed in circumstances which few in this country can realise, and this is one of the most remarkable facts in Irish history. They are Irishmen who perform that duty without fear of the consequences, even when murder and assassination threaten their lives in lonely places. I hope and believe this measure will strengthen their faith in the desire of the Government to stand by, them in their task, which they perform unflinchingly and will support them in their wish to be socially and professionally a body which desires to have justice done to it within its own sphere, and without outside interference of any sort or kind. It is in that hope and belief that I confidently submit the main provisions of this Bill. This measure establishes in the Irish Police Force representative bodies corresponding to the representative bodies established in England under the English Bill which was recently passed. It brings to the notice of the police authorities and the Lord-Lieutenant all matters affecting the efficiency and welfare of the members except individual questions of discipline and promotion.
The second provision is to enable improvements to be made in the pay and pensions of the Trish police similar to those recommended by the Desborough Committee, and given effect to under the recent Police Act. It is for this latter reason neces-
sary to introduce a new Bill for the improvement of the pay and allowances of the Irish police. Their pay and allowances in the past have been fixed by Statute, and if any alteration of their pay and allowances is to be made it has consequently to be made by Statute, and this is one of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. There are certain material differences between the British and Irish police forces, and owing to these differences the provisions of the Irish Bill cannot be identical with those of the English Bill. In England, I believe there are fifty-eight separate county police forces and 128 separate borough police forces, and these forces are mainly controlled and paid bythe local authorities out of the local rates, with certain subventions in aid from local taxation and Parliamentary Grants. On the other hand, in Ireland there are only two police forces, the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Both these forces are State services under the direct control of the Irish Executive and are paid out of moneys voted by Parliament. There is only a very small amount paid out of local rates or by subventions—I think the exact amount is £52,000 as against £2,185,000 in the case of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and £52,000 as against £203,000 in the case of the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
As the House will remember, in the English Bill it was necessary to elaborate a scheme for uniting all the members, I think, of 180 forces throughout the country in one federation with separate branches for each force, and for each rank in each force, and for co-ordinating all these into a central representative body. On the other hand, in the case of the Irish forces the problem is much more simple, as we are dealing there with two homogeneous forces with uniform rates of pay and conditions of service. All that is required is to establish in each force representative bodies for all the members of the forces, and it is not necessary or desirable to provide for any representative body for the two forces as they differ materially in character. The Royal Irish Constabulary is in reality a semi-military force, consisting of 10,353 members. On the other hand, the Dublin Metropolitan Police would only represent the police force of a very large English borough, its membership being something like 1,259. In Clause 1 of the Bill it is provided to establish in each force a representative body for all ranks except the highest, or
for each separate rank, as the case may be, to be elected by all the members of the ranks in question, the details of the constitution and method of election being left to rules which will be promulgated by the Lord-Lieutenant. The Bill provides for the representative bodies being independent of and unassociated with any external bodies and prohibits members of the force from being or becoming members of bodies whose object it is to control or influence the pay, pensions, or conditions of service of any police force. There is one exception. If a constable happens before the passing of this Act to be a member of any trade union, he can remain a member of that trade union with the consent of his chief officer. The Bill empowers the Lord Lieutenant to make orders fixing the pay, pensions and allowances, and, like the English Bill, provides for these Orders to be submitted in draft to the representative bodies of the various ranks of the men. As the pay, pensions and allowances are to be paid out of public money, the House will realise that it is necessary for a Money Resolution to be passed, and I propose that that Money Resolution should be considered by the House to-morrow. The concurrence of the Treasury is required in these Orders, and the Orders must be also before both Douses of Parliament for a certain period. This, I think, will ensure that those public moneys out of which these men are to be paid will have proper Treasury and Parliamentary control.
There are three remaining Clauses, which are very short. Clause 5 deals with a very small point, but one which has assumed an importance in the life of the constabulary in Ireland. It removes a grievance which, has arisen under Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Irish Police (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1915. Under that Sub-section, when a policeman joined, as a great many of them very gallantly joined, the Army or Navy during the War, and died or became disabled while serving in that force, a supplementary pension was paid to him or to his widow and children out of police funds, but it was limited to half the amount of the pension payable to him or to them out of naval or military funds. The effect of this limitation has turned out badly in a great many cases. It turns out that the two pensions combined were really less in a month than the pension which he or his widow would have obtained if he had
died or become disabled in the course of his duty. The effect of this Clause is to enable as good a pension to be paid as if lie had been serving in the police force all the time. Clause 6 also removes a grievance arising 'out of a more recent Act, namely, the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1916. Prior to that Act police pensions were calculated on the average pay received during the three years' preceding retirement. The Subsection in question abolished the three years' average basis and provided, in effect, that pensions were to be calculated on the actual pay at the time of retirement. In practice that has not worked out as well as what we expected. In case after case we have found that a constable during the last three years of his professional service has become a sergeant, and in the long run he has retired on less pay than he would have done if he had never become a sergeant at all. This is a Clause to remedy that grievance. Clause 7 is a very short and simple Clause. It is a Clause prohibiting the illegal or unauthorised use of police uniforms.
Before I sit down, I should like to express my personal regret that this Bill does not include an addition to the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police. I need hardly tell the House, coining as I do from Ireland with a fresh knowledge of the wonderful gallantry of these men who have served as well as those who are serving, that I regret this fact, but the Treasury, as was pointed out in the course of the discussion on the English Police-Bill, have so far adopted a firm attitude. This morning I approached the Treasury to see if there were any change in that attitude. There is no change so far. One can see the enormous difficulties of the Treasury. After all, these men whose services have been so commended are part of a gigantic Civil Service, and the argument is clear and obvious. If an addition were made to the pensions of these men, the State—and if possible this has to be avoided at the present moment—would have to extend that addition to every single branch of the Civil Service. I know that my colleagues from Ireland have received a great many representations upon this point. So have I, and I can only state that it is a matter of very great personal regret to me that in this Bill I have not been able so far to include an addition to the pensions of these men.
After all is said and done, they are in a peculiar position. One knows that if a man has served his country in Ireland, either in the Army or Navy or in the Police Force, his chances of adding by honest work to his deserved pension in his after life are very few and far between, and I for one will willingly approach the Treasury again and see whether in the case of these men an exception cannot be made. I think that I have discussed all the Clauses of this very short Bill, and I hope that I have not missed any point. If I have, I shall be preased to reply to any criticism or to give any enlightenment upon any Clause of the measure which I have failed to make clear. With every confidence, I submit the Bill to the House for a Second Reading.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."
The Chief Secretary, with that peculiar idea of courtesy which he has lately developed, began his speech by making the flippant and insolent observation that I was responsible for the fact that the Government have not dealt with the question of the conditions of the Irish police previously. From what he said one would imagine that his heart was bursting with sympathy for the unfortunate fate of these policemen, and that the Government were in a state of the profoundest sympathy with them and always had been. He said that it was not the fault of the British Government that these grievances have not been redressed long ago. I ventured to ask him, and I do not think it was a very disorderly interruption, whose fault it was?

Mr. MACPHERSON: And I explained whose fault it was.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Now you are interrupting. But I suppose that any right hon. Gentleman on that bench is entitled to interrupt as often as he likes. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government was always most anxious to redress the grievances of the Irish police, and that I was the one who stood in the way. But the Bill was only tabled a few days before the House adjourned for the Recess. I carefully blocked the Bill then because we were entitled to a discussion upon it. But that does not account for
all the year in which you did nothing. It is mere hypocrisy to come down here and pretend that the English Government was always anxious to deal with this question. They could have done so had they chosen long ago. But what is the Bill presented to us to-night? Primarily, it is offered as a bribe to the Irish police. The police form part of the Army of Occupation, and the right hon. Gentleman desires to keep them snug and content: therefore he offers to increase their salaries. But the second object is to be found in his desire to prevent Irish policemen from joining anything in the nature of a trade union. He does not hesitate to put that in the Bill itself, because the object of Clause is to prohibit constables being members of a trade union. That is the real object of this Bill. It is not to increase the wages of policemen. They could do that without an Act of Parliament. They have done it without an Act of Parliament.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I stated in the course of my speech it was quite impossible to do it without an Act of Parliament.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I am prepared to hear the Attorney-General on that point. Before this I have heard gentlemen highly placed in the Government of Ireland whose legal opinions are not of much value. If the Attorney-General will tell me that the pay of the Irish police has never been increased except by Act of Parliament. I will accept it. I have high respect for the Attorney-General.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): The salary of the Royal Irish Constabulary is fixed by Act of Parliament and cannot be increased except by Act of Parliament.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Of course I accept that, but it is not an answer to my question, which was, Has any increase ever been given to policemen in Ireland without a special Act of Parliament authorising such increase? I say it has.

Mr. HENRY: Not as increase of salary, but as bonus.

Mr. MacVEAGH: A Daniel come to judgment‡ I thought we should get at it somehow. We should learn how it was done. The increase was given, we are told, not as an increase, but it was camouflaged as a bonus. Why was not a bonus given in this instance without an
Act of Parliament? I will tell the House why. It was because they wanted to get in this Clause prohibiting policemen from becoming members of a trade union. The extra pay was put in by way of gilding the pill. The ulterior purpose was to drag in the Clause against trade unionism. The right hon. Gentleman dealt very cursorily and perfunctorily with the position of the pensioners. What is the case for the pensioners? There are about 8,000 of them in Ireland. The average pension which they draw is £49 per year, and that, as the House will readily understand, is not worth more than £15 pre-war money. The widow of a policeman who died in the service gets £10 a year—worth about 50s. pre-war money. Ninety per cent. of the pensioners are actually drawing less than £49 per year to-day. There is a constabulary fund which amounts to-day to no less than £373,000. Yet the pension question is not settled‡ What is going to happen to that £373,000? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) pretty well knows what is likely to happen -to it. I think he will agree with my forecast that when the present beneficiaries die out the Treasury will appropriate all that is left. Why not deal with that money now, and divide it among the beneficiaries? I cannot understand why that should not be done. To allow that fund to continue to accumulate until it reverts to the Treasury amounts to something like a scandal.
There is another grave omission from this Bill. It makes no provision whatever for the case of the men who were compulsorily retired in 1918. The history of the compulsory retirement of these risen is au interesting one. I have had a mass of letters on the subject, some of them of a very complimentary character and others of an abusive character. There is one from which I will read to the House. It asks leave to call to my notice the meanness of the police authorities, acting on the suggestion of the Treasury probably, in compelling a certain number of the members of the R.I.C. and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to retire in the year 1918. Prior to that time, or rather since the passing of the Police Compulsory Retirement Act, no man was allowed to retire save on a medical certificate, but immediately there was an anticipated rise of pay with a consequent increase of pension a very eminent Inspector-General issued a circular directing that all men
above the rank of constable who had thirty years' service or were fifty years of age should have their cases taken into, consideration with a view to their being discharged on the lower rate of pension. No crime or charge of a disciplinary nature was preferred against any of them. They were simply informed that they were-retired on pension at a given date Previously there was no regulation compelling any man to retire before he was sixty years of age or had put in forty years of service, but under this Order men were retired at fifty years of age with thirty years' service. The letter concludes by saying that the pension of the writer is £79 a year, but that he would have been entitled under the Desborough Act to £190 a. year. Yet by this summary dismissal be was penalised to this serious extent.
There is only one way in which to compel the Government to deal with cases of this nature. We mast deal with the matter now on the Second Reading of the Pill for when once the House passes the Second Reading the Bill gets out of our hands, and hon. Members may whistle for any redress in regard to pensions or grievances. The right hon. Gentleman-told us he had seen the Treasury and that notwithstanding his broken-hearted appeals they refused to consider the position of these men. He says he is prepared if necessary to make still another appeal. I am getting rather sick of this perpetual message to the House of Commons "that the Treasury will not agree." What is the Treasury? Does the House ever stop to ask what is this so-called Treasury? The Treasury means a second division clerk in a big office at Whitehall. There is one mho ought to be called the King of Ireland, for he deals with all the finances of Ireland. You would not know his name if you heard it. But he is the Treasury. ITE.1 says "Yes" or "No," and that is the end of it. Very few Ministers of whom I have had experience have had the courage to tell this young gentleman that he is not the master of the House of Commons, but that the House of Commons is his master. It is not for the Treasury to dictate to this House; it is for this house to tell the Treasury what it ought to do. It is not only upon the question of pensions that the House would be well advised to exercise more freedom and its power over the Treasury. The Treasury can waste money and it can save money. So far as, Ireland is concerned we have never heard of the Treasury doing anything except
save money. They do not waste much money over there. I have not the slightest hope that the Chief Secretary will be able to persuade the Treasury to do anything. There is not a clerk in the Treasury Office who could not walk round the Chief Secretary and leave him nowhere. It is no good sending him. I would rather send the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson). I would like to see a clerk at the Treasury telling him that there was no money and I should like to hear his reply. It might not be Parliamentary, but it certainly would he vigorous.

Sir E. CARSON: I will go there with the hon. Gentleman if he likes.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I am inclined to accept that, but I hope that if the right hon. Gentleman goes with me to the Treasury he will help me to tell them what both of us think about them. There are some other matters on which we could talk to them and probably we should not be very diverse in our views. In these circumstances I ask the House not to give a Second Reading to this Bill until an -opportunity has been given for fuller consideration. I ask them not to give it a Second Reading, in the first place, because the Bill is totally unnecessary. The wages can be increased without this Bill. All they have to do is to call it a bonus and the trick is done. I ask the House not to give the Bill a Second Reading for the further reason that it is a Bill aimed at trade unionism. The object of the right hon. Gentleman is to follow the example of the English Bill. Because the Police Bill was passed for England prohibiting trade unionism they say that therefore it must be passed for Ireland. You do a lot of good things for England which you do not do for Ireland, but when you do a bad thing for England you want to do it for Ireland, too. There is no necessity for passing this Bill or for assuming that there would be trade unionism among the Irish police. Finally, I submit that as long as such a long list of grievances in regard to pensions of the men and their widows remains unredressed, this House should not allow the Government to get the Second Reading of the Bill until they have settled with the Treasury what the Treasury is going to do.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir E. CARSON: I am very glad that the Chief Secretary prefaced his remarks on this Bill by bearing eloquent testimony to the services rendered by the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. I am sure that the House in every quarter would bear testimony to the loyal service which this force has at all times rendered to the Crown and to the Government of the country. It matters nothing to them what may be our political differences or what political Government may be in power; they have always proved themselves the same loyal, efficient force. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) talked of this Bill being a bribe to the police.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I was referring to the conduct of the Government. I was not commenting on the police.

Sir E. CARSON: The hon. Member said the Government intended it as a bribe to the police.

Mr. MacVEAGH: So they do‡

Sir E. CARSON: The Government should know that the police in Ireland need no bribe to induce them to carry out their duties. They are men who at all times of the day and all times of the night are carrying their lives in their hands, and they have never made the slightest demur, so far as I know, to the onerous duties put upon them. To suggest a bribe in relation to those services is an insult to the most loyal force in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member says that this is a Bill to prohibit trade unionism, and with the same voice he says that the Irish police never had any trade union. The House will agree that if that is so it is a great improvement for the Irish police that you should set up a constitution of representative police bodies who will be able to put before the Government the grievances under which the force labours. If they had no such power before and if there was no such body to represent their grievances it cannot but help to have those grievances considered that such a body should he set up now. I notice in this very Bill that, as regards the important questions of pay, pensions and allowances of the members of the police force, before those rates of pay are put before this House any order proposed to be made is to he submitted to the representative body or bodies representing any
rank or ranks affected, and before making the order the Lord-Lieutenant is to consider any representations made by such body or bodies. The representations of such body or bodies, of course, will be available for this House when it comes to consider the rates of pay, pensions and allowances of these men. Is it not idle to say that that, is not an improvement in the status and position of this force? Then the Bill, as I understand it, goes on to enact that there is to be a new scale of pay, pensions and allowances. At any rate, it gives authority for that purpose. The hon. Member opposite opposes the Second Reading of the Bill, and says you can do that without any Act of Parliament. The Attorney-General for Ireland has told us that you cannot do it, and we know perfectly well that the rates of pay are fixed by Statute. The hon. Member refutes that argument by saying the bonus was given during the War to these men, and therefore a Statute is unnecessary. I do not think anyone who knows what these men are doing and the services they are rendering to their country would like to delay this Bill one hour, and we should all desire to show this force that this House, at all events, recognises—what I am sure the country recognises—their loyalty in the most anxious time that any force of men serving the Crown have ever experienced.
Then with the other part of the hon. Member's speech I am in a good deal of agreement, but I do not see that because the pensioners have grievances that is any reason why you ought to oppose a Bill which could be amended to include those grievances. The pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary deserve the fullest consideration of this House. I do not believe any man who has gone into the question would for one moment say that the grant necessary for the purpose would be wasted or improperly spent public money. These men, like the present men, also carried their lives in their hands, and what happens to them when they retire upon a miserable pittance of £40 or £50 a year after a faithful service of thirty or forty years? Under these circumstances, when they go back into the country districts they are looked upon by a large body of people as their enemies, because they have -served the Government and the country faithfully and loyally, and we know well -that many of them do not get employment for themselves or for their families, that it is a disqualification that they have served their country faithfully and
loyally, and whereas the pound sterling represents so little of what it represented before the War, these men in many cases are eking out with their families a most miserable existence, almost amounting to starvation, and that is the reward they get for serving in the most difficult service that could be rendered to a Government. More than that, many of the men who fought in the War, from the South and West of Ireland especially, were the sons of these men. One man told me the other day he had five sons in the Army, and as they became demobilised they could get no employment because they had served their country. I snake an appeal to the Government and to the House to compel the Government to do justice to these men. It is only justice—bare, naked justice. You cannot afford, in the condition of Ireland, to leave these men as they are, being punished for faithful service to you. If ever there was a time when the Royal Irish Constabulary wanted encouragement and wanted to be shown appreciation by this House and by the country it is the present time, and I earnestly hope the Chief Secretary has not said his last word upon including these pensioners in the Bill.

Major NEWMAN: As a resident in the South of Ireland I should like to express my hope that the House will demand from the Government that these pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police shall be included within the scope of the Bill. I have worried at any rate five Chief Secretaries for years on this subject. I have always been put off up to now with the fact of this Police Pensioners' Fund. I never had much sympathy, and I thank the Chief Secretary at any rate for the half promise he gave us this evening. He is going once again to the Treasury to try to get blood out of a stone. I agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) that it is for us to decide that this thing shall be done. It is not for us to go to any clerk, any Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any official at all. It is for the House of Commons to say that these pensioners who have served them so faithfully shall have their due reward, we insist on it and we will have the money. I trust every hon. Member will realise that throughout Ireland everyone is convinced that these pensioners should have their just claims met, including their own officers from the highest to the lowest. Only this afternoon a
letter was put into my hands which had been sent to the Secretary of the local branch of the County Cork Irish Pensioners' Association from the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
Sir,
I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, forwarding a copy of a Memorial from the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I have very great sympathy with the pensioners, whose position must be exceedingly difficult in view of the increased cost of living.
I am, your obedient Servant,
Inspector-General.
That shows that these pensioners have the sympathy of the present Commanding Officer of the Forces. I can bear out the hardships that many of these pensioners are suffering. They come to me in this House and in the South of Ireland. A fortnight ago a deputation came to see me. Two of these people were practically in rags and evidently suffering from want. They put their case before me, and I promised to do what I could, and I trust that now the House will once and for all take the bit between their teeth and insist on justice being done to these police pensioners.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sure the House generally will agree with all that has been said relative to the necessity of increasing the status of the police in Ireland, and especially of dealing with the pensioners. But pensioners in Ireland are really no different from pensioners in England, because if there is one class of person more than another who has felt the effects of the increased cost of living it is those who are in their retiring days in receipt of small fixed pensions. If in Committee a case can be made, as I am sure it can, for an additional provision in Ireland there would be no stronger supporter of their inclusion than those who sit on these benches. But we are opposed to this Bill for an entirely different reason. It is no use camouflaging the cold, hard fact that the Bill, if passed in its present form, says in substance to the Irish police, You shall never he allowed to have a trade union in the sense that trade unionism is understood by the workers. It may be argued that this is establishing a trade union. You may turn to this Clause and say, This for the first time recognises some form of collective bargaining for the policemen in Ireland. That may be true. It may be argued, and I am not disputing it. Limit the case to that, but also let the House
keep clearly in mind that when this Bill passes it is illegal, and every policeman who associates and joins in the trade union movement as it is understood in England and in Ireland is immediately subject to dismissal. The House of Commons should clearly recognise that fact before giving a Second Reading to the Bill, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macpherson) will not dissent from that. I submit that it is not fair to the House of Commons to talk about this Bill creating a trade union for policemen. It does nothing of the kind, and it is for that reason that we on these benches are very strongly opposed to the one Clause in the Bill which has the effect I have described. This is the wrong time to suggest that trade unionism is not a factor in the life of this country, as well as in Ireland; that must be fully recognised. It has been said, and I believe the House may take it as a fact, that when the first industrial conference was called in this country following the War the Government themselves invited the police union to attend that conference, and in all the negotiations that have taken place since that union has been fully recognised, and yet when the Police Bill for England was introduced a Clause similar to this which we are now discussing was introduced. It is because we believe that it is contrary to the interests of combination, and because we believe that a policeman ought to have the same right to combine as any other workman, that we, at least, object to this Clause. It is only on the ground of this particular Clause that we are laying our objection this evening. 1 hope that instead of the House voting for the Bill on the erroneous assumption that it allows trade unionism, that it establishes trade unionism, and that it helps trade unionism, they will realise that it does nothing of the kind, but that it is a blow at trade unionism and will be understood so by every worker in the country.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I should like to join with my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) in making an earnest appeal to the Government to do what they can to provide better pensions for the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police. These men have served the country with a heroism, courage, and devotion which it is impossible to overestimate, and they have done it in very troublous times in Ireland. There is many a man living in Ireland to-
day who owes the protection of his life and property Lo the courage and self-sacrifice of these men. Anyone like myself, an Irishman, who remembers the time when it was impossible for anyone to profess and utter loyalty to this country, to go about without danger to their person and property, will remember what the Royal Irish Constabulary did in the discharge of their duty in protecting loyal men, will do all in his power, even at the expense of a charge on the public service, to see that the lives of these heroic policemen are made more tolerable how do we reward these men? We reward them by allowing them to live in a condition of almost absolute starvation in many cases, and in want of some of the elementary necessaries of life. This Rouse has shown by its word, and I am glad to say by something more than by words, that it has a profound sense of obligation and gratitude towards the men who have fought for us in the War. How could it be otherwise? Have not these policemen a somewhat similar claim upon our gratitude? Have they not fought the fight of justice, and have they not, in many cases, as the Chief Secretary knows, fought for the lives and the interests of all loyal and peace-abiding citizens?
If we reward the men who have fought for us in the War, it should not be forgotten that the men who in civil life in positions of great danger have done their utmost to preserve life and property in Ireland have a call upon us. We shall be told that this involves a larger question, affecting not merely the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, but affecting the Civil Service and pensioners wherever situated. I should be the last to object to any legitimate increase of pensions to any deserving class in this country, but the ease of the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police differs in one very important particular from that of any other class of pensioner in England or Ireland. At the present time these policemen and soldiers in Ireland are shot down and it is very difficult to discover the murderers, and at the same time it is almost impossible for the police pensioners to get employment in Ire and. I speak within the knowledge of many people in Ireland, and of this I am certain, [...] there are hundreds and thousands of people in Ireland who, if they dared do it, would gladly rive employment to these police
pensioners, but in many cases they are afraid to do it. Just as men are intimidated in Ireland from giving evidence to convict the murderers of soldiers and policemen, so they are intimidated from giving employment to these deserving ex-public servants. I am not exaggerating, but I am stating the actual facts of the case. It amounts to this that these men have done splendid loyal public service, and owing to the very fact that they have done that service they are prevented from getting employment to-day. In that way the case of these men constitutes a quite different and exceptional claim upon our consideration. Therefore, I do beg the Chief Secretary and the representatives of the Treasury to give consideration to this case, for if not they will have left a blot on the administration of the law and the principles of justice in Ireland which most of us in this house would be sorry to see inflicted by a Government which we know is determined to maintain law and order, and to restore Ireland to a condition of ordinary prosperity.

Mr. MOLES: I am glad to recognise the admirable case made out by the Chief Secretary and others who have spoken for this measure. I do not understand the position of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) any more than I understand the position of my own countryman, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh). Both of them are striking a serious blow at bringing the pay of the police up to a proper level. I would ask them do they or do they not believe in the principle of a living wage for policemen as well as for workmen? [An HON. MEMBER: "They have a right to get it."] I would rather have an answer from the two hon. Gentlemen concerned. They have not answered.

Mr. THOMAS: It is obvious you do not want an answer from me. We do believe in a living wage.

Mr. MOLES: Then why does the right hon. Gentleman oppose a Bill which proposes to give them a living wage?

Mr. THOMAS: Because it robs them of their right to get it.

Mr. MOLES: The most essential feature of this Bill is that it recognises that the police have been grossly underpaid in the past and that it proposes to give them tardy justice now. The right hon. Gentleman who believes in the principle of a
living wage proposes to do his best to see that the police do riot get it. Of course, that is not exactly how he puts it. He is too used to the arts of camouflage. He puts it on the basis that the police would not be allowed to join a trade union as he understands a trade union, and because of that he says they would not allow him to have a living wage. That is logic as preached from that bench. As to my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh), I can in a sense understand his attitude. As he is against the Government, of course he is against the police. That has always been his attitude. He is consistent in that respect, at any rate, in his evil conduct. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby—

Mr. MacVEAGH: Are you against the Government?

Mr. MOLES: I am not in the sense in which my hon. Friend is. I have some respect for law and order. He has not.

Mr. MacVEAGH: You do not know where you will be in a week.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. MOLES: At any rate, I am certain that wherever I am I will not find myself in my hon. Friend's company. I will take very good care about that part of it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will not resent what lie may regard as the familiarity of a new Member in dealing with a man of established reputation if I proceed to probe into his mind and tell him what he thinks about this question. This is no new question. Not so long ago on the floor of this House we were discussing a police union in respect of another matter. What he really wants to get is to have in the Police Force a trade union in the ordinary sense as he understands it, so that v, hen a strike is engineered against the whole of social, as some strikes have been, he and those with whom he acts will be able to employ the police through the medium of the sympathetic strike to withdraw from the public the protection of the police at a period when they most need it, and in that way be able to enforce a de ‡iand that could not be insisted upon in the ordinary course. That is really what he means, and just because lie cannot achieve it he proposes again to say that the Irish police are to be compelled to work on at a starvation
wage. To whomever else that may commend itself, I am perfectly certain that it will not commend itself to working-class sentiment outside, and though the right hon. Gentleman may not respect my views I know that lie has some consideration for that.
I would like, if I may, to say a word for the class for whom the Chief Secretary has sympathy, but to whom apparently he is not in a position to give much help. Frankly I do share the view of my hon. Friend opposite—and that is as near as I will get towards getting into his society—that the Chief Secretary is too mild-mannered a man to go to the Treasury. I wish that he would put the bottom button on to his coat, and take his courage in both hands when he has got a really de. serving case of this kind to go to the Treasury again, and I do wish that whoever is responsible here for the Treasury would endeavour to have some measure of humanity, some sense of discrimination in dealing with claims that are so clamant as this is. I know that up and down the country some of the busiest years of my life have been devoted to the task, pleasant or unpleasant, of being frequently in the society of the police in very critical times. I have actually taken part in a baton charge. I did it because I thought it safer to charge with the police than be one of the charged without them. I know something of the terrible risks they ran in the recurring periods of turbulence which constantly passed over our country. I have seen men, more than one time, struck down and carried to hospital and invalided out of the force upon a miserable pension that no ordinary employer would dare pay to a clerk. Look at the position of sonic of those older men, men who retired under the pensions scheme. The pensions which they received were in the neighbourhood of a year. The purchasing power of the £40 in to-day somewhere about £15. They are too old to betake themselves to any kind of avocation, even if one could be found. These pensions were fixed having regard to the then cost of living, and are wholly inadequate at the present cost of living, and I respectfully submit, and I ask the House to endorse the view, that if the Government fixed a pension which was to have regard to the cost of living to these men at the end of their days, if the cost has entirely changed, as it has, the Gov-
ernment is in justice and honour bound to see to it that the few weeks or months of life that remain to these men shall be spent in a fair measure of decency and comfort. Even my right hon. Friend opposite will, I think, subscribe to that.
The case of the second grade of men in the scale of pensions is slightly better, but really it is hopelessly inadequate for the purpose of maintaining themselves, and there are pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force who are endeayouring to live in conditions of starvation which would be considerably bettered by maintenance in the workhouse. It is to the discredit of the Irish Government, which has so frequently lauded these men and complimented them on the dangers through which they have passed to the credit of themselves and to the great advantage of those who value law and order in Ireland, that it is not prepared to do more for these men. They do not want the compliments, but they do want justice. They have asked for it frequently. They have never had it. I think that they ought to have it now, and if the Govern-merit does not meet us here in this matter we will press it on thorn in Committee, and we hope that they will meet us there.

Mr. ADAMSON: The Bill is almost identical in terms to the Police Act which recently passed this House for the police force of Great Britain. The Chief Secretary has informed the House that the advantages which this Bill would confer upon the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been too long delayed, and he paid a high tribute to the patriotism and faithfulness with which members of that constabulary have done their duty. In introducing a Bill conferring those advantages surely there was no necessity at the same time to take away from members of the Royal Irish Constabulary the ordinary rights of citizens, the right to combine for the purpose of securing for themselves fair conditions of service?

Mr. M'GUFFIN: They never had it How can you take from them what they have not got?

Mr. ADAMSON: By this Bill these men are prevented from entering into a combination for such a purpose. I am not sure whether the Chief Secretary is right in saying "outside their own quarters," because as I read the Bill they are not entitled to combine as a complete force;
they might [...] it in districts, but these district associations are not to combine as a whole. That is preventing the members of the cons[...]lary from combining in a trade union a. we understand it. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has been twitted on the ground that he is anxious to use the members of the police force through the medium of the sympathetic strike. I want to inform the House that I do not believe there is a single Member on these benches who is anxious that the police force should be used for any such purpose. What we are very anxious to secure is that these men shall have the right of combination conferred upon them, so that they may be able to take such steps as will ensure fair conditions of service. If the members of the Irish Constabulary receive this Bill in the same spirit as the police force of Great Britain has received the Act recently passed by this House, I can assure the Chief Secretary there are many who will not thank him very heartily for what he is doing. There is not the least doubt that a large number of the police of Great Britain are dissatisfied with the terms of the recent Police Act. Moreover, a large number of trade unions in the country are dissatisfied with the terms of that Act. If the hon. Member who spoke last would take the opinion of the working classes of the country, I am not so sure that lie would not find au overwhelming majority on the side of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas), and in favour of the views he has expressed. Whatever action we may take regarding the Second Reading of this Bill, it is not to be taken as meaning that we are against the advantages which it confers upon members of the Irish Constabulary. What we are protesting against as strongly as we can is the action of the Chief Secretary in giving with one hand and taking away or withholding with the other. By withholding from the members of the Irish Constabulary the right of combination as we know it, the Government are not reposing in those men the confidence that their past services entitle them to look for.

Mr. M'GUFFIN: I cannot express too warmly the indignation I feel at the attitude taken up by those Members of the House who oppose this Bill. The Royal Irish Constabulary is a very noble body of men. Physically they will compare with anything of a similar character that is to be found in Great Britain; in respect of
intelligence they are men[...] more than average attainment, and [...] instances of extraordinary attainment in point of moral character their high reputation is established. They have [...] very chivalrous in their conduct; they have undertaken great services on behalf of the country; and now, when this House has the opportunity of requiting these men for their services, we find a section of Members rising to oppose the Bill. I am more than surprised at the action of the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). Be attacks this Bill on the ground that it excludes the members of the constabulary from the rig] t of combining as a trade union. Is there not procedure under the Bill by which they can obtain abundant representation of any grievances they may have and if that is not trade unionism in name it is in every other respect. The trade union as it was originally evolved was for the adjustment of grievances, and the institution set up for the constabulary is just such an institution which can accomplish that purpose. With regard to the ex-constabulary men I would plead earnestly with the Chief Secretary to consider the case of those men. They have performed the same noble heroic service on behalf of the country as those who are now in the force are doing, and if it is necessary to increase the remuneration of the constabulary is also necessary to consider the position of those men who have received such small pensions. It is utterly impossible for them to maintain on those pensions even themselves, apart entirely from their families. For these and other reasons I hope this Bill will be passed, and if we consider the claims of those men in respect of past services it is our duty to concede the claims of this Bill.

Mr. WATERSON: When the Police Bill dealing with the English police was under consideration I raised an emphatic protest against various Clauses of that Bill which are now incorporated in this Bill. I think it wise at this juncture to lay particular emphasis on the fact that there is no one more anxious than we on these benches for better conditions and better pensions for the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to endeavour to make it go to the public that we are opposed to that is an entire misuse of the situation. I am opposed to this Bill on one ground alone, and just as I made my protest against the English Bill I desire to take this oppor-
tunity of protesting against this Bill upon the same basis. We heard, with much eloquence from the right hon. Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) and one or two other hon. Members of the faithfulness of these excellent men who served their country right loyally and well. There is no individual in this House who would disparage them. Everyone is alive to the importance of that, but I venture to say that the position in Ireland to-day after all we have heard from hon. Members opposite is eloquent testimony to the entire mismanagement of Ireland as a whole, and probably if the truth were properly known one really would wonder how many Members of Parliament there are who are somewhat responsible for the position in Ireland to-day. This heroism and courage which has been attributed to the Irish Constabulary is not of six or eight months' standing, but has been going on for many years, and it is therefore remarkably strange to me that it is only at this particular stage that we find the Minister is prepared in some form to recognise that by increasing their pensions. I also draw attention to the fact that one Member stated that he had seen baton charges, and that men had been struck down, and as a result had been maimed for life, and that miserable pensions had been granted to them. Now in this Bill, after all that has been done, we have an attempt being made by statutory powers to prevent these men from getting justice. They are robbing these men of the rights and liberties of collective bargaining to alter those conditions which hon. Members state have been miserable in the days that are gone. I submit that the sympathy that has been so eloquently put forward is not satisfactory. What is really required is something of a practical character, and I venture to say also that, just as the Home Secretary for England was encouraged by the fact of hon. Members passing his Police Bill, there is no doubt that the Irish Executive is rather anxious to carry on the same policy in Ireland; and if this house as a whole could rule, there would be no trade unionism at all in Great Britain or anywhere else. The Government has passed one Bill, and, notwithstanding the objections from hon. Members, I am convinced that whilst you endeavour to camouflage the situation, your own hearts' desires are utterly opposed to it. Further than that; when we look into Clause 3 we find that
if any person causes, or attempts to cause, or dues any act calculated to cause disaffection amongst toe members of any police torte, or induces, or attempts to induce, or dots any act calculated to induce any member of a police it the to withhold has services or to commit breaches of discipline" and so on.
Where is going to be the line of demarcation? A couple of constables may be found talking in the street, and any sort of concocted story can be formulated for the specific purpose of doing an injustice to those men, and all these men will be able to do will be to put their case before their chief officer, and by past experience we do not look to the future with any amount of pleasure. We would far rather, at any rate, that one of the men's own representatives should put the case for the men where victimisation is possible, in order that the case can be put clearly and distinctly and that the men shall have justice done them.
In Clause 4 it says that with the concurrence of the Treasury it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant to make Orders as to pay, pensions and allowances, and that he shall make those arrangements. Where is the right of collective bargaining? Where is this beautiful trade unionist principle coming in when it is left to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant himself? I submit that this Clause should be completely eliminated from the Bill, and I am in agreement with the right hon. Member for Derby and others on these benches, that, whilst we [...] not opposed to any advantages that may accrue to the Irish Constabulary from this Bill, this is the only opportunity that we have to enter our protest against what we honestly believe to be a determined opposition from the reactionary forces in this country to defeat trade unionism at every turn and every time, and I make my protest, as I did on the previous occasion, hoping that the Government will be defeated, if their Whips are put on there is not much likelihood of it, but we have said enough to make the House believe that we are not in sympathy with it; we shall protest against it, and we will endeavour to create public opinion against it if it is passed.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: As I am qualified as probably no other Member is to speak for that splendid body the Dublin 'Metropolitan Police, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words.
It has been said that "a policeman's lot is not a happy one." I can say in
Ireland it is a particularly unhappy one, and certainly this Rouse would be doing much less than justice it it refused to support this Bill. One ounce of fact is worth a pound of theory, and I happen to have gone through the Larkin strike in Dublin. The behaviour of the Dublin Metropolitan Police in that strike was beyond praise, having regard to the fact that they were acting under a Government which, I 'have no hesitation in saying, was carrying out its executive authority with a paralysed arm. That those men should have behaved as they did in the strike is a splendid testimonial to them. Let me give my experience. The late Mr. Connolly, w ho was Larkin's brother-in-law, came to me and said, "I am about to order some of your men to leave your employment. I admit you are a good employer." I said, "If I am, why do you operate on me?" He replied, "We must be the best judges of whom we operate on, and if we make you squeal you will probably make others squeal." Then I said, "Apparently it is a case of swords out," and he said, "It is." That was on the Saturday. On the Monday morning I employed ex-sergeants of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary and said to them, "You know the law. I do not ask you to do anything but to protect my rights as a merchant. You know what can be done within the law and what cannot." The employment of those men was a very great success.
I can only say that as regards that splendid force I would certainly beg the House not to place them at a further disadvantage, for if during that strike they had been members of a trade union and it had been possible for anyone to come forward and say, "That is my trade card," that of course would have absolutely paralysed things. I gave evidence before the Commission which was held in the Sherborne Hotel. I think Lord Hardinge was chairman, and lie said to me, "Do I understand you to say that Dublin Metropolitan Police, who were protecting your carters, or, in default of your carters, your clerks, who had to take their place when they called the carters' out on strike—do you mean to tell me those men were not armed?" I said, "I do." I say that a force that could have gone through experiences of that kind unarmed, and undoubtedly deserted by the Executive, behaved in a splendid way. I would support with all the earnestness possible
the appeal that has been made to the Chief Secretary to make a strong effort with the Treasury to deal justly with this splendid body of men. I have formed the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the Treasury is somewhat akin to a description given by Dickens of a pump, of which it was said, "A harder one to work and a grudginer one to yield there ain't nowhere." That is to a large extent true as regards the Treasury, but I would call upon the Chief Secretary to use the powers lie has with the Treasury to secure justice for these men.
Amendment negatived.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—[Mr. Macpherson.]

Orders of the Day — RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
In the early part of this Session I gave notice of this Bill. That notice was greeted with considerable laughter, though I really do not know why, because the destruction done by rats and mice is no laughing matter. Perhaps it is due to the title, which perhaps is rather on-fortunate for the Board I represent, because I have shortly to ask the House to pass another Bill with a rather curious title—the Seeds and Weeds Bill. I have said that although the title of the Bill may be laughable, the matter under discussion is not laughable. A dozen years ago Sir James Crichton Browne estimated the amount of foodstuffs destroyed in a year by rats at £15,000,000.
During the War, however, the rat population has largely increased in this country, and there can be no doubt about it that in the last year the amount of foodstuffs destroyed probably amounted to £40,000,000, which is very nearly as large as the amount of the bread subsidy paid by the Government at the present time. It is not only the destruction of foodstuffs. These vermin are dangerous to health and property. Rats have created fires in premises by nibbling matches. They have blocked and diverted
drains. I heard of a case the other day where the whole business of a public-house in the West of England was held up because the rats had cut the pipe supplying the beer from the neighbouring brewery. In fact, on this occasion the rats were, in the most extraordinary manner, acting as tae agents of Pussyfoot Johnson. Not only so, but no substance seems to be too hard to prevent an attack by rats. Yesterday I was shown photographs of a rat nibbling a billiard ball. I do not know what happened to the rat, but the billiard ball disappeared. From these facts it will be clear that the duty of the House and the country is to take as energetic measures as possible, to prevent anything of the kind occurring in the future.
The Board of Agriculture has already attacked the question seriously. We have done a great deal of leaflets, pamphlets, and other propaganda, by utilising the cinema, and in other ways to create what I may call an anti-rat atmosphere. We have utilised the rather weak powers we have got by the Rats Order under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. Last week we instituted a great campaign against the rats, which I am glad to tell the House has been signally successful, although we are not yet in a position to publish the total casualty list. Quite seriously, this really is a matter that does require the attention of the House and the country. This destruction of foodstuffs is a most serious matter, and has got to be dealt with. We propose that the present measure which a ill take the place of the temporary Rats Order under the Defence of the Realm Regulations shall compel the systematic destruction of these vermin. There is nothing new in a Bill to destroy vermin, and it is a very old plan. As far back as the reign of Henry VIII. an Act was passed for the destruction of vermin, and the duty was placed upon the churchwardens and six parishioners of each parish. That Act has lapsed, and we do not propose to renew it, but we do propose to place a very drastic measure on the Statute Book, and I will describe it to the House.
First of all, we lay down that it is the duty of every man to be responsible for keeping down vermin on his own premises. The occupier of land and premises is bound to take all necessary and reasonable steps to exterminate vermin, and if he does not do so he will be liable to a fine not exceeding £20. Secondly, it will be
the duty of the local authority to enforce the Act. In the City it will be the duty of the Common Council, in London the Metropolitan borough councils, in the counties the county councils, and they may delegate their duties to district councils. In the county boroughs it will be the duty of the county borough councils. Another Clause enacts that if any individual fails adequately to destroy the vermin on his premises the local authority may enter the premises, destroy the vermin for him, and charge him with the whole expense. The next Clause deals with a local authority which may be in default and may not carry out these Orders, or even worse, which is in the possession and occupation of premises or land and may fail to exterminate the vermin on the land or premises occupied. In that case, the Board of Agriculture comes into play, and it can send an officer to carry out those duties of which the local authority is in default, and at the expense of the local authority.
Clause 5 deals with ships, a very fruitful source of the introduction of vermin. It puts the skipper in the same position as the occupier and under the same penalties, and if adequate measures are not taken by the skipper to prevent vermin escaping from the ship on to the land he will be subject to penalties under the Bill. These are the main proposals. This is really a serious measure for the prevention of a quite unnecessary waste and destruction. For these reasons I commend it to the House, and I hope, it will be carried with the utmost expedition.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The destruction done by rats is a very serious matter. There has been a good deal of humour introduced about this measure, but I do not hesitate to criticise it in a serious manner. Clause 1 seems rather extraordinary, and this is legislation which is essentially bureaucratic. Here you have another case in which a person, if lie fails to take such steps as may from time to time be necessary and reasonably practicable, etc., shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20. It may be necessary to coordinate action against rats and mice and to give the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, as it were, unity of front and power to compel negligent local authorities, and so on, to take action; but is it necessary to put these pains and penalties upon individuals? Really, we are being overlegislated for at the present time,
and, if anyone can be accused of not taking reasonable and necessary steps for the destruction of rats and mice and can then be had up and fined, it is no laughing matter, and some modification of the Bill is needed. May I also make some protest against the master of a vessel being subjected to yet one more authority who has the power to inspect and persecute him? Apparently, every Bill that comes up now has some Clause affecting the masters of ships. At present the Board of Trade have very drastic and efficient powers for dealing with this problem as regards shipping. Why should the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries also have power to inspect and interfere with vessels? I myself, when I had the honour of commanding a ship, was ordered by the Board of Trade authorities to take steps to prevent the ingress and egress of rats and 'nice. There are, therefore, existing powers, arid the Board of Trade have dealt with the matter. Why should the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries now tackle shipmasters in this matter? Speaking as a seaman, I must make some protest on this ground. In all these things masters of merchant ships conic more and snore under Government officials. I suppose there will be a floating section of the Anti-Rat Department of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with their own particular staff for inspecting ships. It is unnecessary; it might be left to the Board of Trade. I hope on the Committee stage that the hon. Gentleman will be able to meet our views and remove our objections. First, that the private citizen, apart from the local authority, is too much interfered with in this matter, arid the Clause might be softened; and, secondly, that it is unnecessary to apply the Bill to ships at all, there being already by-laws and powers under the Board of Trade.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I should like most earnestly to support the hon. Gentleman in this important Bill. I think Members in all quarters of the House will appreciate the enormous importance of this measure, because, in addition to the great amount of destruction of very valuable food products which is caused by rats and mice, estimated, I believe, at between £30,000,000 and £50,000,000 a year, there is another important aspect of the question, which is the amount of disease which is conveyed by rats to the human family. I especially refer to the very ready way in which that dreadful disease, the plague,
is scattered about and conveyed by rats. On these two grounds, there is a very good case for the douse of Commons passing very energetic measures indeed and for seeing that rats as far as possible are exterminated. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Orders of the Day — CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) [MONEY].

Committee to consider of authorising further provision, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the pay of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, and for pensions, allowances and gratuities to members of those forces, their widows, and children, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police — (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.-[Sir A. Geddes.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — COAL PRICES.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. HOLMES: I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the time has not arrived when the price of coal in this country may be reduced. The House will remember that in July the right hon. Gentleman produced a White Paper which, in his opinion, justified his raising the price of coal by 6s. per ton. He arrived at his figures by taking the quarter ending 30th September, 1918, and showing that on the figures thus produced a profit of £40,000,000 a year might be made on coal. He then pointed out that additional charges by way of increased wages and so on to the extent of £86,600,000 had been incurred, and that consequently there would be a deficiency of £46,600,000, and
[...]that deficiency it was necessary to raise the price of coal by 6s. per ton. On the occasion, when we debated that matter in the House, I ventured to call attention to three points on which the White Paper appeared to me to be inaccurate. In the first place, I pointed out that the President had not taken into account the fact that the colliery companies of the country had been allowed for five years to reserve year by year a certain sum to provide for further repairs, for reopening districts which they had closed during the War, and for driving in post-wartime hard headings which they were unable 'to tackle through shortage of labour. The colliery companies are doing this work at the present time, and they are employing thousands of men on it. Then have in hand the money to pay the wages and the cost of materials required for reopening districts, driving hard headings, and for repairing, and therefore the sums being paid out weekly for materials and wages for this work by the colliery companies should not be charged up against the estimated expenses of the year in arriving at the deficiency of £46,600,000.
In the second place, I ventured to suggest that there was a miscalculation with regard to the profit which would be made in this present year in respect to export and bunker coal. The Coal Controller had estimated that we should only be able to sell 23,000,000 tons in the coming year, instead of 34,000,000 for export. That would be a loss of 11,000,000 tons. He estimated that we should lose, therefore, a profit of £1 per ton. In what I may call the standard period, on which this whole calculation was based, that is the quarter ending 30th September, 1918, the profit on the export of coal was not £1 per ton but 10s. 0.38d. The calculation, therefore, was £5,500,000 wrong in that respect alone. But, the position with regard to the export of coal, that we should only make during this present year 10s. a ton, is altogether wrong now. I will deal with that point in a moment. The third point upon which I ventured to criticise the figures was that the President of the Board of Trade had reserved 1s. 2d. per ton for the coal-owners. This was in accordance with tile Sankey Report, but the Sankey Report said that the coal-owners were to have is. 2d. per ton, including all profits on coke and by-products. In the standard period the £40,000,000 profit, which was the rate during the quarter ending
30th September, 1918, includes the profit on coal only and not the profit on by products and coke. Therefore, in making your calculation for the present year, if the Government are going to accept the Sankey Report, and allow the coal-owners 1s. 2d. per ton, including coke and byproducts, you must deduct from your figures the profits on coke and byproducts. Those were the three points which I ventured to criticise at the beginning of July, when the matter was debated. In the White Paper it was calculated that we should have during the present year an output of 217,000,000 tons of coal. What is the present position? The miners have not adopted a "Ca' canny" policy. When the seven-hour day commenced there was, unfortunately, a strike in Yorkshire, so we did not get a normal output forthwith. During the four weeks ending 27th September we had an output which is at the rate of 234,000,000 tons a year. It has dropped again owing to the railway strike. But that month was a test month, which showed conclusively that, even allowing for the unfortunate stoppage in Yorkshire during July, allowing for the effect of the railway strike, and allowing, if you like, for another disturbance of some sort or other before next July, we can look forward to getting much More than the estimate of 217,000,000 tons which the President put clown in his White Paper. We must also remember that while there was a loss of output in Yorkshire during July owing to the strike, on the other side of the account the coal-owners did not have to pay any wages to the miners.
The new point, the important point, is this: That we are able to do an export trade in coal far beyond the estimate of the White Paper. The President estimated 23,000,000 tons for the next twelve months. He gave me this afternoon, in reply to a question, the amount of exports for August and September, and they are at the rate of over 30,000,000 tons per annum. So there is no doubt we [...]be able to continue our export,[...]satisfactorily. But the profits [...] making on the export trade are beyond all anticipation. The President said this afternoon that he could not state what the prices of export coal were at present. I can tell him that the colliery companies which are able to do a large export trade—all collieries are not able to do it—are making profits not
only far greater than was anticipated, but absolutely beyond all imagination. These records should by this time be in the Coal Controller's office, because he has monthly returns from all colliery companies.
That being so, having regard to the fact that this Gs. rise was only justified in the main by saying we were going to lose £11,000,000 on the export of coal, and that the amount of export of coal is not reduced, and the profits which we are getting from the export of coal are far beyond all anticipation, there is surely good ground for saying that the 6s. increase in the price of coal should not be continued. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me how much coal the Admiralty arc having at present as compared with this time last year. This time last year we were still in a position of war. Perhaps I should take the quarter ending September, 1918, which is the standard period for this calculation. The submarine campaign was in full swing. The Admiralty must have been using an enormous amount of coal. They were getting it at a cheap price. The Admiralty have never paid a real profit to the coal-owners; they have always been far below the market price. At present they must be getting far less coal than in the standard period; that leaves far more coal to sell to other people at a larger profit, and it should be taken in in this calculation. The points I want to put to the President of the Board of Trade are these. If he will remember the White Paper, and in the first place allow for all the money held by the colliery companies for deferred repairs, for driving hard headings, reopening districts, which they are now doing, and which should not be charged against the profit and loss account of the present year, that he will allow the increased profit beyond anticipation which is being made on the coal that we are selling for export and for bunker purposes (for we are also selling more coal for bunkers than was anticipated); in the third place, that he will take into account the fact that the coal-owners are to have 1s. 2d. a ton of all profits, including those on coke and by-products, whereas in his calculation he only included the profits on coal; and further, if he will take into account the tonnage which the Admiralty is using as compared with the standard period, and so allowing more coal to be sold profitably outside. After taking into
account all these considerations, does he still maintain that the rise of Gs. a ton is justifiable?

11.0 P.M.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): The hon. Member has ranged rather beyond the area which I had expected him to cover from the notice he gave earlier in the day. I therefore am not prepared at the moment to follow him into some of the points he has raised with regard to figures, as to which I should have to rely on a recollection now some weeks old. The facts broadly are these. At the time when the 6s. increase was made in the price of coal we estimated that the output for the year beginning in the middle of July would be at the rate of 217,000,000 tons for all purposes. Quarter of that year is gone. The actual ascertained output—I admit the disturbing circumstances— is at the rate not of 217,000,000 tons a year, but of something under 203,000,000 tons. I think it is 198,000,000 tons. It is quite true that the profits being made at tie present time upon the export of coal are high. We always believed they would be high in the first quarter of the year. It is quit e true that the profits made on bunkers is high. We always believed they would be high in the first quarter of the year. There is no real, new fact in the situation except this that in spite of the improvement of coal output in some places the actual ascertained output for the first quarter of the year is at a lower rate than we estimated. We have a loss on the coal control arrangement at the present moment which is being borne by the Treasury—a cumulative loss, not cumulative in the last three months because about that I have no accurate information—of £22,000,000. There is no great profit being made out of the coal control. I think it is known to my hon. Friend who, I am sure, is in a position to know, that the arrangement with regard to the accounts of collieries, which have been in force for some time, is that the accounts for a quarter are sent in two months after the quarter ends, that is when they are clue. It is true that a few come in at the end of the month after the close of the quarter. They dribble in during the second month, but experience shows that the majority of the collieries are late, and run a few days into the third months. It is, therefore, quite impossible of the present moment—as I told my hon. Friend earlier in the day—to say exactly
what the profits are that are being made. I know quite well that the profits in a few collieries are very great, but when those profits are reduced to is. 2d. per ton, and when the surplus profit of these collieries is taken to make up the deficiency at the other collieries this great appearance of profit-making will, at all events, to a large extent, disappear. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Board of Trade or the President of the Board of Trade took some malignant delight in having coal at a high price. There is absolutely no truth in that. From the official point of view and the point of view of my office, there is nothing that I long for more than to see the price of coal down. It is of great importance to the whole country. I would like to see the price of coal down, for bunkers especially. The charge for bunkers is now very high. That is adding to the cost of everything that is imported. It is keeping up freights, and we are at present working on such estimates as we have got, seeing what can be done without calling upon the Treasury for a further subsidy, to reduce the price of bunker coal.
I am not yet in a position to say whether it will be possible or not, but I am sure that all those who have looked into this matter will agree that the reduction of bunker coal is an urgent matter. The prices are very high. For freights from London in some cases the price is over 100s. per ton, and when you think of what that means, 1,500 tons being put on board, you realise what the bunker bill will be of a boat sailing from the Port of London. Say a steamer is bound to Australia, with no great cargo going outwards, to bring home food—meat or wheat—from Australia. The whole of that price of coal has to be borne by the food. That is one of the reasons for the high prices of imported food at the present moment—one of many reasons. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is one of the contributory causes for the rise in the prices of imported food. So I can assure the House that the Loam d of Trade is most anxious that the price of coal should be brought down at the earliest possible moment consistent with avoiding adding to the subsidies which the Treasury has had to give for coal. There is perhaps one main point that I must refer to. That is the point made by the hon. Member when he said that the profits of coke ovens and by-products were included
in the 1s. 2d. per ton. That is [...] the Sankey Report. At all events I can [...] him that there is a misunderstanding.

Mr. HOLMES: That is in his own version which has been transcribed from the shorthand notes.

Sir. A. GEDDES: I am afraid that I do not quite understand what the point is.

Mr. HOLMES: The right hon. Gentleman met the coal-owners last April and told them that his version of the Sankey Report was that the 1s. 2d. per ton included the profits on the coke ovens and the by-products. I have got a copy of that.

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes; but the hon. Member is mixing up two completely different things. There have been a great many discussions carried on, and a great many interpretations have been received of the Sankey Report, including one by Mr. Justice Sankey, if my recollection serves me aright, and it was my perfectly honest understanding of the Sankey Report, and after that, when Mr. Justice Sankey showed that it was not exactly what this Report meant, we accepted his ruling.

Mr. HOLMES: The fact had not been made public. I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to announce it to-night, and I am quite satisfied.

Sir A. GEDDES: That point, then, is cleared up. That was the final point I wished to make. If this discussion has served no other purpose, perhaps it has served the useful function of clearing up that particular point, which, I think, is quite well-known to the coal-owners' associations. There is nothing further I can add except once again to assure the House that at the earliest possible moment we will bring down the price of coal, provided that bringing down that price does not mean a further subsidy from the Treasury. The Government stands by the assurance I was authorised to give at the time we debated this question, that if, as the result of increased output it is possible, we will reduce the price by a few pence—by 6d. or 1s.—we will not wait until July.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Without touching in any way on the actual figures quoted by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member (Mr. Holmes), I may say that this question of the price of coal
is by general consent of immense importance to the industry of the country. The right hon. Gentleman says that nothing can be done in the way of subsidy to put the coal on the market at a lower price. Has that matter been fully explored? If coal could be put on the market now at a reduction of, say, 15s. a ton for twelve months, would it be possible by that means to give our trade and industry such a fillip as would be well worth while? The extra subsidy would then be recoverable in the extra taxation ‡available in the Excess Profits Tax and die other sources of revenue provided by increased trade. I throw out this suggestion with the greatest deference possible. We are in a vicious circle of rising prices, rising wages, and rising prices again, and we are having great difficulty in getting our trade and commerce going again. Would it not be statesmanlike to break the vicious circle by deliberately putting coal on the market at less than cost price? I think the matter is worthy of most careful consideration.

Major BARNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in regard to the reduction of the Excess Profits Duty from 80 per cent. to 40 per cent. that 40 per cent. has gone to the coal-owners, or whether the Government retain it? I gather that where a colliery has been making more than 1s. 2d. per ton the surplus is taken from it and given to less fortunate collieries. Is it the fact that no colliery is ultimately getting more than 1s. 2d. per ton profit?

Sir A. GEDDES: With regard to the last part of the question, that would not be the correct view. Its share of what I may call the Profit Fund is arrived at by allowing 1s. 2d. per ton on the coal raised, and the fund is then divided between the various collieries in proportion to the profits allowed.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Is it correct to say that some collieries are making 5s. a ton?

Sir A GEDDES: I could not answer the particular point of what they will make when the 2d. arrangement is carried out. There will be some collieries making a dead loss. One cannot answer questions of that sort until the whole thing is squared up. I should not put it outside the range of possibility that seine collieries would get 5s. a ton. With regard
to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) of putting subsidised coal on the market in order to help industry and lower prices, I would like to assure him that that proposal has been very fully examined, and the effects of that proposal worked out fully. The best economic opinion is that it would not help, but would have the opposite effect to that which the hon. Member anticipates and that instead of sending prices down it would mean in-
[...]prices for internal consumption. [...] at present I think it is wiser to try [...]get rid permanently of any subsidy on coal and get prices clown on the merits.

Major BARNES: May I have an answer as to the point about excess profits?

Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot answer it. Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Eleven o'clock.